From Zarleycat at aol.com Thu Aug 1 00:26:06 2002 From: Zarleycat at aol.com (kiricat2001) Date: Thu, 01 Aug 2002 00:26:06 -0000 Subject: Lupin the brave, Sirius the terrorist? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 41956 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "pippin_999" wrote: > > The only time we see Lupin in anything like a panic is when > Sirius is about to kill Peter before he can give an account of > himself. Then he yells, "NO!" in All Caps, mind you, and flings > himself bodily on Sirius, further injuring Ron. And when Ron tries > to leave, it's Lupin who stops him, at wand point. Strange, since > he supposedly ran out to the Shack to save Ron's life. Call me a nitpicker here, but Lupin does not further injure Ron. From US edition, pg 349 "And Crookshanks was thrown to the floor as Black lunged at Scabbers; Ron yelled with pain as Black's weight fell on his broken leg. "Sirius, NO!" Lupin yelled, launching himself forwards and dragging Black away from Ron again." And on page 350, "He [Ron]tried to heave himself up on his good leg, but Lupin raised his wand again, pointing it at Scabbers." So, really, it doesn't seem as if Lupin either intentionally or unintentionally hurt Ron, nor threatened him directly with his wand. Marianne From bard7696 at aol.com Thu Aug 1 01:35:42 2002 From: bard7696 at aol.com (darrin_burnett) Date: Thu, 01 Aug 2002 01:35:42 -0000 Subject: Pettigrews debt to Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 41959 Monica wrote: --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "moviedrop1" wrote: > I was wondering if anyone else has wondered about how Pettigrew will > pay Harry back for Harry not letting Sirius and Lupin kill him. In the > Scholastic version pg. 427 Dumbledore says "This is magic at it's > deepest, its most impenetrable, Harry. But trust me... the time may > come when you will be very glad you saved Pettigrew's life." I think > this means that Pettigrew is going to save Harry's life, but I wonder > what will cause him to do this since he did nothing to help Harry when > they were in the grave yard. Do you think that Voldermort will get rid > of Pettigrew now that he is powerful again? I think what Dumbldore was > saying is a foreshadowing to Pettigrew repaying his debt to Harry and > maybe he will die trying. Anyone else have any thought on this? Maybe > this has been discussed before but I am new and did not see anything > else on this. > -Monica > Happy Birthday Harry! First, don't ever be afraid to bring up a topic because it may have been covered before. I for one would just give up if I believed every topic has been covered completely. You might spur a discussion that leads us to another direction, and hey, rehashing old stuff can be fun too. OK, to your topic: Debts are funny things. Let's take Snape. His sense of honor, and I do believe he has one, whether I agree with it or not, insists to him that he try to protect Harry. This is blatant in SS/PS and even in PoA, you get the feeling he's still looking out for our little hero when he gripes at him for sneaking off to Hogsmeade. But this debt does not extend to treating Harry with any respect or decency. It is possible that Pettigrew did try to save Harry. He tried to convince V-Mort to use another wizard for his resurrection ritual. He failed, but apparently V-Mort didn't grasp entirely what was behind Wormtail's reservations (I believe he'd have killed Wormtail on the spot had he figured it out.) My guess is that Pettigrew will try to do something in the future, but I'm not sure it will be so dramatic as throwing himself in front of an AK blast. Or maybe it will. At this point, I have no clue how this series will end, and who will die and who will live. My heart tells me I want Harry to live but my brain tells me it would be a dynamite ending to a story to have -- and I can't take credit for this; a poster whose name I can't remember suggested it -- Hermione and Ron looking at the Mirror of Erised and seeing their lost friend Harry. Darrin -- If I knew the ending, I'd not buy the books. From richasi at azlance.com Thu Aug 1 01:52:48 2002 From: richasi at azlance.com (Richasi) Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2002 21:52:48 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Pettigrews debt to Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000201c238fe$e74c9680$e6d51b18@cfl.rr.com> No: HPFGUIDX 41960 Darrin Wrote: > end, and who will die and who will live. My heart tells me I want > Harry to live but my brain tells me it would be a dynamite ending to > a story to have -- and I can't take credit for this; a poster whose > name I can't remember suggested it -- Hermione and Ron looking at the > Mirror of Erised and seeing their lost friend Harry. You know, I don't think I've really thought about that until just now. One part of me would say having Harry die is a fitting end to the story. It'd be tragic but predictable. If there's one thing that we might get from this is that it is usually the innocent who get killed. So, while it might be poignant (and rather spooky. Just visualizing the image of Hermoine and Ron staring into the mirror sent chills down my spine), it might be even more poignant to have Harry and Hermoine or Harry and Ron staring in... in a tribute to not only lost friends, but of those who were innocent. Richasi From rvotaw at i-55.com Thu Aug 1 02:54:45 2002 From: rvotaw at i-55.com (Richelle Votaw) Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2002 21:54:45 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Pettigrews debt to Harry References: Message-ID: <006a01c23906$e5377880$17a0cdd1@istu757> No: HPFGUIDX 41961 Monica writes: > this means that Pettigrew is going to save Harry's life, but I wonder > what will cause him to do this since he did nothing to help Harry when > they were in the grave yard. Do you think that Voldermort will get rid > of Pettigrew now that he is powerful again? I think what Dumbldore was > saying is a foreshadowing to Pettigrew repaying his debt to Harry and > maybe he will die trying. Anyone else have any thought on this? Maybe > this has been discussed before but I am new and did not see anything > else on this. I think Peter did nothing to help Harry in the graveyard because Voldemort was there. There's no way on earth that Peter will stand up against Voldemort. If it's ever the two of them (Peter and Harry) he might hesitate to kill Harry then because Harry spared his life. I think it will definitely come up again. As far as Voldemort getting rid of Pettigrew, I don't think he would hesitate a second if it aided his cause or he was too much trouble. Dumbledore said that Voldemort "shows just as little mercy to his followers as to his enemies." In fact, if Voldemort knew that Harry had spared Peter Pettigrew he would probably just go ahead and kill him rather than take the chance that Peter would hesitate to kill Harry on his own. Richelle From jmmears at comcast.net Thu Aug 1 04:57:44 2002 From: jmmears at comcast.net (serenadust) Date: Thu, 01 Aug 2002 04:57:44 -0000 Subject: Ages of Hogwarts students In-Reply-To: <008f01c238d0$b2972c80$3d9fcdd1@istu757> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 41962 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Richelle Votaw" wrote: > Finally, Hermione. JKR stated that her birthday is September 19th. So, did she receive her letter early and start at Hogwarts when she was still 10? Or did the letter tell her to come the following year? If she began the year that she turned eleven, though still ten for 2 1/2 weeks, she would be about 6 weeks younger than Harry, 6 1/2 months younger than Ron. On the other hand, if she received her letter after term had begun and had to wait till the next September to start at Hogwarts, she would be 5 1/2 months older than Ron, and 10 1/2 months older than Harry. Hi Richelle, If you type "Hermione's age" into the search engine, you will find enough posts/arguments/discussions to entertain yourself for weeks. If you check Steve's lexicon, you will find (under Timelines, Hermione) an essay by Ebony who eloquently makes her case for Hermione being younger (1980 birth), rather than older (1979 birth). It's not all that important to me, but I do think that she was born in 1979. My reasoning is based on the fact that JKR does seem to base Hogwarts school schedule on the British/Scottish calendar and most of the British listmembers who have weighed in on this topic seem to believe that Hogwarts would have the same Sept. 1 cutoff date as most schools in Scotland. Therefore, anyone with a Sept. 19 birthdate would fall into the next upcoming class. My second and stronger reason for believing Hermione is older is based upon chapter 16 in GoF where Angelina Johnson is eligible for the triwizard tournament because she has just turned 17 in October. My assumption has always been that she was in the same class as the twins which would make her one of the older 6th years. Canon isn't really clear on this point though, so if she's still around as a 7th year in book 5, we'll have strong evidence for Hermione's Sept 19 birthday making her older than Harry and Ron. As it stands, we just don't really know, but loads of people care passionately about this and as you can see from the archives, argue diligently for their particular point of view. Jo Serenadust From wmginnypowell at msn.com Thu Aug 1 01:27:17 2002 From: wmginnypowell at msn.com (merimom3) Date: Thu, 01 Aug 2002 01:27:17 -0000 Subject: Snape/Rita Skeeter connection? In-Reply-To: <20020731040038.97384.qmail@web40305.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 41963 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Lilac wrote: > > I just re-read GoF (US version) and three things caught my eye... > 2. pg 431: Hermione is telling off Rita Skeeter in the Three Broomsticks, and Rita replies: "Sit down, you silly little girl, and don't talk about things you don't understand," said Rita Skeeter coldly....(re: Ludo Bagman) > > Wait, I thought. I've heard something similar to this line before...aha, here it is... > > PoA pg 360: "KEEP QUIET, YOU STUPID GIRL!" Snape shouted, looking suddenly quite deranged. "DON'T TALK ABOUT WHAT YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND!" (Re: Black's innocence) > > Interesting...is this just a common put-down for girls in the >Potterverse? Or, is it something that JKR heard as a "swotty" >little girl and brought it out again for her "younger" self -- >Hermione? Or, is this just the lowest put down you can give >Hermione, who prides herself on being "the cleverest witch of her >age"? Just thought I'd draw that comparison. Or maybe Rita Skeeter and Snape are the same person! Have we ever seen them together? To be slightly less hysterical, maybe they are related / close frinds / lovers? Do we know how old Rita is; maybe she was in Slytherin with Snape? They could have both had a professor who preferred a similar put-down. Or maybe their personalities are just very, very similar, which explanation I like least, since I love Snape and hate Rita. Ginny, who can't believe she is actually caught up and able to post, and on Harry's b-day no less! From ajl at hanson.net Thu Aug 1 02:58:54 2002 From: ajl at hanson.net (dembeldei) Date: Thu, 01 Aug 2002 02:58:54 -0000 Subject: Pettigrew's debt to Harry Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 41964 Monica said: "I was wondering if anyone else has wondered about how >Pettigrew will >pay Harry back for Harry not letting Sirius and Lupin kill him. In >the >Scholastic version pg. 427 Dumbledore says "This is magic at it's >deepest, its most impenetrable, Harry. But trust me... the time may >come when you will be very glad you saved Pettigrew's life." I think >this means that Pettigrew is going to save Harry's life, but I wonder >what will cause him to do this since he did nothing to help Harry >when they were in the grave yard." I've always surmised that it might be key that Voldemort was resurrected from the combination of Harry's blood and Peter's flesh, not realizing that Peter was in debt to Harry! I am interested in seeing how this plays out (will V. or his magic self combust when it hits this paradox, etc.?) Dembeldei From Kiyari6 at yahoo.com Thu Aug 1 05:11:40 2002 From: Kiyari6 at yahoo.com (Kiyari6) Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2002 22:11:40 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Lily, Harry, and Voldemort's demise Message-ID: <20020801051140.64228.qmail@web21310.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 41965 This is an issue that I have had trouble believing for the longest time, and I have no idea if it's been raised before but I would like to know other's opinions. In PS/SS Voldemort was killed when his curse rebounded on him. So the book makes it seem like there is truly nothing special about Harry, and that it was Lily's sacrifice that saved Harry. Now I do see how this is very powerful magic. A mother giving up her life with the hope of saving her child is one of the greatest sacrifices that could be made. But my problem is that no one really knew this could happen. I refuse to believe that this has never happened before. At some point in time in the past some one must have begged to have the life of a child, sibling, or any loved one to be saved if they are killed instead. Avada Kedavra can't be a new spell, Voldemort didn't create it. And in POA Moody said only Harry has ever survived it. Similar circumstances must have come up in the past where a parent has offered their life for their child's and then the child to have been killed too. Voldemort is not the first evil power-hungry wizard the wizarding world has had to fight, just the most recent. The fact that Lilly gave her life for Harry must have given him some protection, but I don't believe it was enough to have saved his life. There either must be something special about Harry himself or possibly something hidden inside him. Dumbledore has yet to tell us why Harry was to be killed in the first place. Only James and Harry had to die that night it seems, maybe only Harry, but Lily got in the way. Unless there was something special about Harry, Voldemort would not have wanted him to be dead. If he were a normal child in the wizarding world Voldemort wouldn't have cared about him. I personally believe that Harry has some very special magical talent hidden away inside him and it may just be starting to emerge. He can do advanced magic now, he could in third year with his patronous. Voldemort was afraid Harry would grow and defeat him so he tired to kill Harry as a baby. But we all know how well that idea worked out. I'm anxious to know all of your opinion's on this topic. Kiyari __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better http://health.yahoo.com From SaalsG at cni-usa.com Thu Aug 1 08:31:13 2002 From: SaalsG at cni-usa.com (Grace) Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2002 03:31:13 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Pettigrew's debt to Harry References: Message-ID: <00bb01c23935$cce1df80$2e3f53d1@SaalsD> No: HPFGUIDX 41966 Monica said: "I was wondering if anyone else has wondered about how >Pettigrew will >pay Harry back for Harry not letting Sirius and Lupin kill him. In >the >Scholastic version pg. 427 Dumbledore says "This is magic at it's >deepest, its most impenetrable, Harry. But trust me... the time may >come when you will be very glad you saved Pettigrew's life." I think >this means that Pettigrew is going to save Harry's life, but I wonder >what will cause him to do this since he did nothing to help Harry >when they were in the grave yard." And Dembeldei responds: I've always surmised that it might be key that Voldemort was resurrected from the combination of Harry's blood and Peter's flesh, not realizing that Peter was in debt to Harry! I am interested in seeing how this plays out (will V. or his magic self combust when it hits this paradox, etc.?) Now me: Hmm.. ." this is magic at its deepest." I am interested too in seeing how JKR fits that paragraph into the story. I have the feeling that the thinking is that Peter offers to do - or not do - something to fulfill this life debt. But. Is it possible that Harry can call upon it when he needs it regardless of whether or not Peter wishes to have this life debt fulfilled at the moment? Grace From lilac_bearry at yahoo.com Thu Aug 1 09:05:21 2002 From: lilac_bearry at yahoo.com (Lilac) Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2002 02:05:21 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [FILK] We Got The Bets Right Here! Message-ID: <20020801090521.27281.qmail@web40311.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 41967 We Got The Bets Right Here! to the tune of "Fugue For Tinhorns" from GUYS AND DOLLS midi version: http://www.broadwaymidi.com/shows/guys_and_dolls.html (but in my version they don't sing the verses in a round) (The Scene: GoF pg. 87-88 where everyone is meeting Ludo Bagman for the first time at the World Cup) "Fancy a flutter on the match, Arthur?" (Ludo) said eagerly, jingling what seemed to be a large amount of gold in the pockets of his yellow-and-black robes. LUDO: Roddy Pontner here bet that Bulgarier will be the first to score and give a cheer-- nice odds, nice odds, and Ireland's front three are strong so I offered him nice odds, nice odds, nice odds. Ms. Timms bet half her eels because she really feels that the match will last for 20 meals-- week-long, week-long, she thinks it'll go week-long, (I'll be eating eel 'fore long!) week-long, week-long. FRED AND GEORGE: All our money's up for Ireland to win the Cup, but that the snitch is caught by Seeker Krum-- fake wand, fake wand, we'll even throw in a fake wand, as long as we don't get conned, fake wand, fake wand. LUDO: Front three strong... FRED: Eel 'fore long... GEORGE: Don't get conned... ALL THREE: We got the bets right here! ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~ "Tut, tut --- hardly any of you remembered that my favorite color is *lilac*. I say so in Year with the Yeti." --Gilderoy Lockhart, COS --------------------------------- Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From clare.pilotconsult at btinternet.com Thu Aug 1 08:26:26 2002 From: clare.pilotconsult at btinternet.com (Clare Johnson) Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2002 09:26:26 +0100 Subject: A few thoughts on wands References: <1027803031.912.18081.m12@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <001601c23935$23332700$b28501d5@e4t0t4> No: HPFGUIDX 41968 Jackie writes: how exactly is Harry supposed to kill Voldemort if their > wands are doing Priori Incantatem every time they meet up? Unless of > course Voldemort is somehow disarmed... but it wouldn't be very noble > of Harry to AK an unarmed wizard, would it? I'm not sure who *else* > could kill him (Dumbledore? Snape? Malfoy??) but if Harry does, there's > really no way he can do it with magic. Unless, of course, something > happens to Voldemort's wand and he needs to use a different one... > ::goes off to ponder this possibility:: Re-reading PS, it's mentioned when Harry first meets Ollivander that O. remembers Lily buying her first wand. To me this clearly implies that it is quite feasible for witches/wizards to have more than one wand through the course of their career (as we also see from Ron's new wand, though that is a slightly different case from what I have in mind as Ron's original wand was handed down and not chosen for him alone). I wonder whether as you develop you might have another wand or two, depending on the type of work you want to do, as Ollivander also clearly mentions that some wands are better at some tasks (eg Lily's for charm work, James' for transfiguration). So perhaps Harry will kill Voldemort (and I agree in self defence) with a wand other than his current one, which would get round the Priori Incantatem, though think there is more to this than we know right now - we have only been around for a limited time when this happened and don't know how Voldemort was treated by the ghosts from his own wand. I know we have also had some discussion on the qualities of wand cores and wonder if (I have looked on the previous postings but can't find anything) the type of wood may make a difference here. From various legends floating round my head (sorry that I can't give chapter and verse here) I associate holly with powerful protection, which must surely be crucial to Harry. Clareysage From psychchick04 at yahoo.com Thu Aug 1 12:41:46 2002 From: psychchick04 at yahoo.com (Jacqueline Hendries) Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2002 05:41:46 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Pettigrew's debt to Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020801124146.63552.qmail@web9205.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 41969 --- dembeldei wrote: > Monica said: "I was wondering if anyone else has wondered about how > >Pettigrew will > >pay Harry back for Harry not letting Sirius and Lupin kill him. In > >the > >Scholastic version pg. 427 Dumbledore says "This is magic at it's > >deepest, its most impenetrable, Harry. But trust me... the time may > >come when you will be very glad you saved Pettigrew's life." I think > > >this means that Pettigrew is going to save Harry's life, but I > wonder > >what will cause him to do this since he did nothing to help Harry > >when they were in the grave yard." > Then Dembleldei said: > I've always surmised that it might be key that Voldemort was > resurrected from the combination of Harry's blood and Peter's flesh, > not realizing that Peter was in debt to Harry! > I am interested in seeing how this plays out (will V. or his magic > self combust when it hits this paradox, etc.?) And now me: I agree wholeheartedly with Dembeldei. One more bit of evidence that supports this: In PoA, Dumbledore says "Unless I'm much mistaken, Voldemort will not want a *servant* who is in debt to you." The spell which brings Voldemort back to life? "Flesh of the *servant*, willingly taken..." I think JKR worded this VERY carefully. I think the "willingly taken" bit might also cause a teensy problem, since Peter was obviously frightened into doing it. :) We haven't seen any evidence so far that this has made him any weaker, or more vulnerable to Harry, but I'm also interested in seeing how JK will tackle this subject in future books - might it affect Voldemort in the same way that Lily's sacrifice does? As Dumbledore said in SS/PS, the one thing Voldemort can't understand is love. Well, it seems to me he doesn't really *get* the whole forgiveness/kindness thing, either. :) ~ Jackie, who is happy to have graduated from Moderated Member status ===== jackie04 at brandeis.edu __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better http://health.yahoo.com From rvotaw at i-55.com Thu Aug 1 14:14:46 2002 From: rvotaw at i-55.com (Richelle Votaw) Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2002 09:14:46 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Lily, Harry, and Voldemort's demise References: <20020801051140.64228.qmail@web21310.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <004801c23965$cbb349c0$13a3cdd1@istu757> No: HPFGUIDX 41970 Kiyari writes: > either must be something special about Harry himself > or possibly something hidden inside him. Dumbledore > has yet to tell us why Harry was to be killed in the > first place. > > can do advanced magic now, he could in third year with > his patronous. Voldemort was afraid Harry would grow > and defeat him so he tired to kill Harry as a baby. > But we all know how well that idea worked out. I'm > anxious to know all of your opinion's on this topic. My opinion on this matter is based on the theory that Harry is both the heir of Gryffindor and Slytherin. The only canon I have to support is this: For heir of Gryffindor: --His parents lived at (or at least were in hiding at) "Godric's Hollow." (Godric being Gryffindor's first name) --When Harry first got his wand there were red and gold sparks. Gryffindor colors. Sure, he was sorted into Gryffindor. But surely everyone's wand doesn't produce the color sparks of the house they end up being sorted into. Or else what would be the point of the sorting hat? Just have somebody at Olivanders to write it down. And notice we have never seen anyone else receive their wand to know about the sparks one way or another. (unless I've totally missed it) --Harry pulled the sword of Godric Gryffindor from the hat, which Dumbledore later told him "only a true Gryffindor could do." There could be something more to that, or else every Gryffindor wouldn't be true and that would mean the sorting hat makes mistakes all the time. Or Dumbledore could've been hinting that Harry was perhaps the truest Gryffindor that can exist. For the heir of Slytherin: --Well, Harry did open the Chamber of Secrets. Sure, he didn't use the creature to petrify or kill people, but he did open it. Good old Professor Binns stated "The heir alone would be able to unseal the Chamber of Secrets." Harry didn't open it for the same reasons as Tom Riddle, but he did open it. Of course, he only could do that because he's a parseltounge. Which is very rare, but that's about all we know. It could be rare enough to mean only the true heirs of Slytherin have it. --Harry's green eyes. JKR has stated there's something very important that he doesn't know yet about his eyes, and Slytherin is the only connection I can make due to them being green-- bright green to be exact. It's also interesting that we don't know what color eyes Tom Riddle had. We see them take on a red gleam, which would mean they weren't always red. Anyway, if all those things would happen to work out to Harry being the heir of Gryffindor and Slytherin he would be more powerful than possibly any other wizard. The earlier you can kill him, the better in Voldemort's point of view. Other points, what about James? If James was the heir of Gryffindor only that would mean Lily had to be the heir of Slytherin, which opens up a new barrell of apples. I won't get into that today, though. If the green eyes are anything to do with Slytherin, she has to be. Otherwise, it's possible that James was both heirs as well, I suppose, and Voldemort only just became aware of it or something, therefore hadn't tried to kill him before. Richelle From dicentra at xmission.com Thu Aug 1 14:43:44 2002 From: dicentra at xmission.com (dicentra63) Date: Thu, 01 Aug 2002 14:43:44 -0000 Subject: Lupin the brave, Sirius the terrorist? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 41971 Pippin observes: > If Lupin is irrational with fear for Harry, there's no sign of it > once he reaches the Shack. He's pale and tense, but quite in > control of himself. The first thing he does is confiscate the Trio's > wands; an odd way of trying to protect them, it seems to me. The > next thing he does is ask about Pettigrew. In fact, it's Pettigrew > that seems to concern him the whole time. > > The only time we see Lupin in anything like a panic is when > Sirius is about to kill Peter before he can give an account of > himself. Then he yells, "NO!" in All Caps, mind you, and flings > himself bodily on Sirius, further injuring Ron. And when Ron tries > to leave, it's Lupin who stops him, at wand point. Strange, since > he supposedly ran out to the Shack to save Ron's life. > Ooooh, Pippin. More LYCANTHROPE (aka Evil!Lupin), eh? Lupin's going out of his way to protect his fellow DE? Not so concerned about the Trio, right? Ok. So maybe that's not what you're insinuating, but your observation is interesting nonetheless. We do assume that Lupin is motivated by concern for the Trio's safety when he dashes out of the castle. But maybe he really is more interested in Peter. Maybe he has reason to believe that all the people involved, including Sirius and Peter, are at risk. Just like everyone else, Lupin has believed that Sirius is after Harry. But by the time he sees the events outside the Whomping Willow, he has two reasons to think that the dynamic between the Trio, Sirius, and Peter is different from what it seems. First, he knows that Sirius turned up at Ron's bedside, not Harry's. Even to the casual reader this event is a bit of a red flag: something is not right. Lupin knows Sirius and knows he's not stupid. He had to wonder if maybe he wasn't going after Harry after all. Second, he suspects that Harry "knows" that Sirius betrayed his parents. When he tells Harry about the Dementor's Kiss, Harry blurts out that Sirius "deserves it." "You think so," said Lupin, lightly. "Do you really think anyone deserves that?" Lupin appears to be trying to draw Harry out, to assess his knowledge of the situation (his "light" tone indicating that he's operating on more than one level). Harry declines to tell him what he knows, but Lupin has to suspect that someone has told him the whole story of his parents' betrayal. So when he sees Sirius drag Ron and Peter into the Whomping Willow (when he could have just as easily taken Harry), he knows that Sirius is not in fact after Harry -- he's after Peter, and he's probably going to kill him. Furthermore, he sees Harry and Hermione go after Sirius and Peter. He must think it possible that Harry will kill Sirius as well, if not for betraying his parents then for taking Ron. Whatever the dynamic of the siutation, he knows that it's volatile and that there's a very good chance someone will be wrongfully killed. He decides to intervene. When he arrives, there's Harry pointing his wand at a bleeding and battered Sirius, but there's no sign of Peter. Evidently to him, he was right about Harry's motives. He disarms the Trio to prevent harm to Sirius and to generally defuse the situation, then asks about Peter. After Sirius's response, he puts two and two together as only HE can and realizes that Sirius is not a danger to the Trio. But he's not going to allow Sirius to kill Peter until he knows exactly what the deal is, to prevent Peter's wrongful death. It's only when he's satisfied that Peter is indeed guilty that he rolls up his sleeves and takes aim. So yeah, it appears that when Lupin runs to the Shrieking Shack, it's not because he thinks Sirius is about to kill Harry, it's because he thinks Sirius is about to kill Peter, perhaps wrongfully. And he's likely worried that Harry might take revenge on the wrong person. --Dicey, who still likes LYCANTHROPE because it's gloriously creepy From johnryanmcc at yahoo.com Thu Aug 1 13:56:08 2002 From: johnryanmcc at yahoo.com (John McCutcheon) Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2002 06:56:08 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Lily, Harry, and Voldemort's demise In-Reply-To: <20020801051140.64228.qmail@web21310.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20020801135608.91217.qmail@web21108.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 41972 --- Kiyari > > So the book makes it seem like there is > truly > nothing special about Harry, and that it was Lily's > sacrifice that saved Harry. Now I do see how this > is > very powerful magic. A mother giving up her life > with > the hope of saving her child is one of the greatest > sacrifices that could be made. But my problem is > that > no one really knew this could happen. I refuse to > believe that this has never happened before. At > some > point in time in the past some one must have begged > to > have the life of a child, sibling, or any loved one > to > be saved if they are killed instead. > > Only James and Harry had to die that night it seems, > maybe only Harry, but Lily got in the way. Unless > there was something special about Harry, Voldemort > would not have wanted him to be dead. If he were a > normal child in the wizarding world Voldemort > wouldn't > have cared about him. I personally believe that > Harry > has some very special magical talent hidden away > inside him and it may just be starting to emerge. I believe in one of the books when Voldemort asked Harry how he survived the AK and Harry told him it was because Lily had sacrificed her life for him, Voldemort replied something along the lines that he had forgotten about that type of protection, that it was old and powerful. I will agree that there has to be something about Harry though that Voldemort knows about that everybody else doesn't. As you said, had Lily not gotten in the way maybe she wouldn't have died. Who knows? There seem to have been many questions raised about that night. I imagine Voldemort being who he is would've killed James and Lily anyway, once he finished off Harry, unless he has some other connection with the Potters. It seems like every question brings up a new one where this event is concerned. He seems to fear Dumbledore too, why go after Harry when he seems to fear Dumbledore's power, unless he knows something other people don't about Harry. Anyway, I'm not answering anything, just raising more questions, so I better quit while I'm ahead. John McCutcheon __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better http://health.yahoo.com From beccablue42 at hotmail.com Thu Aug 1 14:55:55 2002 From: beccablue42 at hotmail.com (beccablue42) Date: Thu, 01 Aug 2002 14:55:55 -0000 Subject: time travel in PoA In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 41973 Here are some of my thoughts on the consequences of time- travel/turning: I see two main theories as to the consequences of traveling back in time (I'm sure true sci-fi fans know of many more!) First, we have the multiple-reality time shift, as seen in my favorite childhood movie, "Back to the Future." In this scenario, every action done in the past has consequences that *could* change the future, resulting in a new, different reality. This seems to be what McGonagall warns Hermione about, so that H is nervous about changing the past. The second option, however, is the one-reality time loop, as seen in "12 Monkeys," where the time-traveler is unable to change the past, and his/her past actions only serve to bring about the future which is already real to him/her. This is best seen in Harry's patronus, where his action of sending the patronus does not *change* the future as he remembers it, but makes it possible. So which does JKR hold to (if indeed she is as geeky as I am and cares about having a consistant quantam theory)? It seems, given the example of Harry's patronus, that she holds to the later. H&H do not actually change the past, but were in a sense predestined to intervene on Beaky's behalf. Their first time through the scene, they only thought they heard Beaky's execution, but on their second trip they (and we) realized that it was Beaky's escape which caused Hagrid's howling. I therefore agree with Amandageist: > >> Buckbeak was already saved because H&H *did* go back in time-- even if they > >> don't know this yet. So, now as dicentra63 points out: > The way Dumbledore acts immediately following the failed execution, it > seems as if he knows that Harry and Hermione have freed Buckbeak: > Here is my thought: doesn't Dumbledore say in the Mirror of Erised scene (PS/SS) that he can be invisible without an invisibility cloak? is it possible that he has some knowledge about H&H's time-turning or involvement in Beaky's escape without himself making the time jump? It just seems to me that he is-- well, not really omniscient, but just really, really wise, and beyond the limits of ammateur magic. He might even have an inkling that Beaky will play a part in Sirius' escape as well, and therefore knows that he won't be airborne for another 2 1/2 hours or so. He therefore feels confident in telling Macnair to "Search the skies." I'm reaching. Sirius Kase wrote: > I don't think Dumbly is > omniscient but I do think he is quite powerful and quite likely able to time > travel. Me: And maybe he doesn't need a turner, just as he has no need for an invisibility cloak. hmmm. I do, however disagree with dicentra63: > OR! > > The first time through that time frame, Buckbeak *is* executed, which > is why Dumbledore suggests that they save him when they go back. So > when Harry and Hermione see Dumbledore and his amused demeanor, is he > aware of the fact that H&H have changed events? Does he know in that > moment that his future self sent them back in time? (Me:) ... becasue as I said, this would be an inconsistant time- travel theory, in which H&H's actions change the outcome of Beaky's execution/escape, but do *not* change the actions of Harry and his patronus. Still, JKR has the right to be inconsistant if she chooses-- who am I to argue with genius? I still have a couple of questions about the time-turner, though. 1. How secret is this turner? Hermione gets it from McGonagall, and Dumbledore knows about it, too. She also receives permission from the MOM to use it, so one would assume that it is a reasonably well-known device within the ministry. Why, then, does Dumbledore stump Snape and the Ministry with his statement (paraphrased- no books at work): "unless you are suggesting that H&H have found a way to be in two places at once..." Why doesn't Snape jump all over that? Why does the Minister of Magic not recognize that the very girl he (or one of his lower staff members) gave a time-turner has just been acused of "being in two places at once," a function of time-travel? odd. 2. Why didn't poor Hermione use the time-turner for extra homework time? Surely this would be allowed under the stipulation that she use the device for her studies! Why not catch some extra sleep while she's at it? Why couldn't she go back when she missed charms? Oh, wait, because she would be changing the time-line, and we have a one- reality model... okay, I have to stop writing because I have finally given myself a headache. Becca - wishing she had a time-turner for her next semester of Grad School From coastertch at yahoo.com Thu Aug 1 15:04:07 2002 From: coastertch at yahoo.com (coastertch) Date: Thu, 01 Aug 2002 15:04:07 -0000 Subject: A few Questions About Ghosts Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 41974 Hello everyone, I'm new here. I'd like to ask a few questions about ghosts in the Potterverse. I'm guessing that there ARE muggle ghosts around (the old man in GoF who comes out of Voldemort's wand), but do they know about wizard ghosts? Do muggle ghosts and wizard ghosts associate with each other? Is the Headless Hunt only for wizard ghosts? Do wizard ghosts still have any of their powers? And finally, we don't know yet why some wizards become ghosts and other don't, but do you think it's any different than the reason muggles become ghosts? Thanks for the help. Tyler From muniloopin at yahoo.com Thu Aug 1 13:32:13 2002 From: muniloopin at yahoo.com (muniloopin) Date: Thu, 01 Aug 2002 13:32:13 -0000 Subject: who is older..lily or petunia Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 41975 Snip from Greg: >Lily gets her letter when she's 11. The whole family > goes off to Diagon Alley, and everyone, including Petunia, falls in > love with the magical world. For the next two or 3 years until > Petunia turned 11, all her parents talked about was the day that > she'd get her own letter. Then, the whole summer of her 11th year > goes by & no letter for Petunia. Rather than admit that the > magical world rejected her, she decides to reject the magical world > by hating all things magical, including her nephew who even at young > age showed he had the gift she never did. I think that scenario > makes more sense than the jealous older sister bit, but maybe > that's just me. Even if Petunia is older, I don't think she can be MUCH older than lily. In my experience, a sister who is older by three or more years, looks upon her younger siblings more or less as a semi-parent. Many older sisters who have siblings more talented than themselves, tend to boast about "my little sister this" or "my little brother that". Younger sisters on the other hand, irrespective of their talents, feel this pressure to live up to the older sister. I tend to agree with the above description of how petunia waited for the letter that never came. But it would make even more sense if they were twins! not identical twins of course (more about this later) but just fraternal twins. That would explain the rivalry and also near-identical ages of Harry and Dudley. Now, what does Petunia look like? in the lexicon, both Petunia and Lily are described as "tall and thin". Lily has green eyes, but what about Petunia? Her eyes have been described as "beady" and some how i tend to associate "beady" with black...is that the universal opinion? could green eyes be beady? Dudley has blue eyes but he is supposed to look like his father, not mother. Petunia has blond hair as opposed to Lily's red. but is it dyed? COULD they have been ideantical twins? The other point is whether or not at least one of the Evanses was a squib. I tend to go with this theory because of the fact that they were PROUD to have a witch in the family. Think about it, if they were a purely muggle family with no trace of magic anywhere, would they be PROUD to have a witch in the family? They would be happy for lily but PROUD? They would be amused by her ability to "turn tea cups into mice" but to them it would be like a muggle magician doing tricks...amusing but not terribly glamorous. In fact, the parents would be glad to have at least one daughter who is still in their world, with normal ambitions and abilities. Also, in a muggle family, no one would expect petunia to be magical too. No one would be upset if petunia became an accountant instead of a witch. In a squib family on the other hand, magical daughters would seem like the only way to respectibility and a daughter who was a mare muggle (well, I guess children of squibs are called muggles/mudbloods) would be made to feel inferior. If the evanses were squibs who cut off all relations with their magical relatives out of shame, that would also explain why harry does not seem to have any relations other than petunia on his mother's side. So I imagine the following senario: Lily and petuania are playing with toy broom-sticks that squib Mr and Mrs Evans have ordered from zenko's for their daughters. To the delight of the parents lily hovers a couple of feel above the ground whereas petunia can only hop around pretending to fly. Or even worse...petunia is fringe-magical...just a tiny bit magical. She can make her toy-broom stick rise a fraction of an inch and no more - however hard she tries. It goes on like this - lily making her toy-wand glow whereas petunia's only heats up ...and so on. Petunia hoping that this would be enough to get her into hogwarts but it is not...lily goes to hogwarts and petunia to a muggle school where she is considered a freak because coming from a squib background, she is ignorant about many muggle things. So she decides to "stamp out that nonsense" in herself and distances herself as much as possible from magic. By the way, I am new to posting here though I have lurked for a long time now. Cheers! > moonilupin From hp_lexicon at yahoo.com Thu Aug 1 17:14:15 2002 From: hp_lexicon at yahoo.com (hp_lexicon) Date: Thu, 01 Aug 2002 17:14:15 -0000 Subject: Ages of Hogwarts students In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 41976 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "serenadust" wrote: > If you type "Hermione's age" into the search engine, you will find > enough posts/arguments/discussions to entertain yourself for weeks. Did you actually try this? The group search isn't very good at such things. I tried "September 19" and had better luck. > If you check Steve's lexicon, you will find (under Timelines, > Hermione) an essay by Ebony who eloquently makes her case for > Hermione being younger (1980 birth), rather than older (1979 birth). Just for the record, the Lexicon uses the date of 1980 mostly because of the single reference in the books to Hermione's age: when Dumbledore referred to Harry and her as "a couple of fourteen-year- old wizards" at the end of PA. I know, I know, there are all sorts of arguements about what he really meant or why he would say that even if she were older, but basically that's the only specific canon information we have, so the Lexicon, in all its bullheadedness about canon, sticks with that. You can read about this in the New and Improved, More Spiffy than Ever Timeline Section of the Lexicon, under the year 1980. Here's a direct link: http://www.i2k.com/~svderark/lexicon/timeline_main2.html#Eighties My personal opinion is that JKR never really throught it all through and when she wrote that line (fourteen-year-old wizards) she really assumed that Harry and Hermione were both 14 at that time. I don't think she thought through the ramifications of that in terms of when her birthday was and what that would mean for cut-off dates etc. She has almost certainly thought it through by now, however, since it's been debated so much, and I wouldn't be surprised to see that mentioned in some way in the next book, kind of like the way she managed to sneak the correct pronunciation of Hermione's name into GF. Steve happily not working on anything well, exceptg an article about the trading card game for pojo.com and drawing the Marauder's Map bit by bit by bit From jestahijinx at hotmail.com Thu Aug 1 17:16:13 2002 From: jestahijinx at hotmail.com (Jesta Hijinx) Date: Thu, 01 Aug 2002 17:16:13 +0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Malfoys run riot Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 41977 >As Darrin says "Keep Draco evil, I say! Make him MORE evil!" - I totally >agree. > Actually, I have this uncomfortable picture in my head of a Star Wars-like climax where Draco finally grows up, says "Enough" and turns on his father at the end. Felinia _________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com From Grumpermuffin87 at aol.com Thu Aug 1 17:09:35 2002 From: Grumpermuffin87 at aol.com (Grumpermuffin87 at aol.com) Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2002 13:09:35 EDT Subject: Ages of Hogwarts students Message-ID: <1a2.636b4e2.2a7ac54f@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 41978 Richelle writes: > So how does it work? Letter early and start early or wait nearly a year? > Is it like Muggle school where you have to be a certain age by Sept 30th? I am on vacation and don't have the books with me right now, but i seem to remember there being references of "getting their letter in the summer".....it seems common sense to me that they would send letters to everyone turning 11(or have turned 11) in that year....so that would mean that Hermione started Hogwarts when she was 10 but turned 11 soon after....anyone else have thoughts? ~Muffin [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From jmmears at comcast.net Thu Aug 1 17:55:41 2002 From: jmmears at comcast.net (serenadust) Date: Thu, 01 Aug 2002 17:55:41 -0000 Subject: Ages of Hogwarts students In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 41979 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "hp_lexicon" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "serenadust" wrote: > > > If you type "Hermione's age" into the search engine, you will find > > enough posts/arguments/discussions to entertain yourself for > weeks. > > Did you actually try this? The group search isn't very good at such > things. I tried "September 19" and had better luck. > Steve's right. Although typing "Hermione's age" brings up some relevant posts, it also brings up many irrelevant (but interesting) ones. I tried "September 19" and got a much more focused search. Thanks for the suggestion, Steve. Steve wrote: > My personal opinion is that JKR never really throught it all through > and when she wrote that line (fourteen-year-old wizards) she really > assumed that Harry and Hermione were both 14 at that time. I don't > think she thought through the ramifications of that in terms of when > her birthday was and what that would mean for cut-off dates etc. She > has almost certainly thought it through by now, however, since it's > been debated so much, and I wouldn't be surprised to see that > mentioned in some way in the next book, kind of like the way she > managed to sneak the correct pronunciation of Hermione's name into > GF. I agree completely. As thorough as JKR is, I really doubt that she focused all that much on the implications of choosing Sept. 19 as Hermione's birthday. It would be really fun, though if she addressed this issue in a future book, so that we could flatter ourselves on having brought this very important point to her attention . Jo Serenadust, grateful that Steve was paying enough attention to improve on her suggestion to Richelle From oppen at cnsinternet.com Thu Aug 1 18:32:46 2002 From: oppen at cnsinternet.com (Eric Oppen) Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2002 13:32:46 -0500 Subject: A thought about Wormtail I just had... Message-ID: <016601c23989$d5eee060$3b87aa41@hppav> No: HPFGUIDX 41980 Could one of the side-effects of "flesh of the servant, willingly(?) given" in the ritual to re-body-ize Voldemort be to give _Wormtail_ some sort of power over Voldemort? Think about it...part of Wormtail is now a big component in Voldemort's new body. We've already seen that the magical "law of similarity" applies in the Wizard World, what with HP's and V's wands being unable to fight each other because they each contain a feather from the tail of the same phoenix. Might this not apply even more strongly between V-mort and W-tail? (Come to it---how would, forex, Also, although it could well be that V'mort _planned_ to let Wormtail bleed to death in the cemetery as punishment for his (alleged by Voldemort) inadequacy as a wizard, he found himself more-or-less compelled, even though he thought of it as an afterthought, to repair the damage and create a new silver hand for Wormtail. So, could this become a problem for Voldemort in the future---he tries to (forex) Cruciatus Wormtail ("You let my _tea_ get _COLD,_ Wormtail? _Crucio!_") only to find himself being adversely affected by his own spell. Or he might find Wormtail's thoughts and personality leaking into his own mind...a horrible thought, don't you agree? Or he and Wormtail might both be casting spells, only to find that they interfere with each other's spellcasting somehow. Just thought I'd mention this...after all, we've discussed endlessly the implications of Wormtail's "life-debt" to Harry Potter, so I thought about Wormtail, and remembered that his very flesh is now part of the big V-man. From tmarends at yahoo.com Thu Aug 1 19:25:05 2002 From: tmarends at yahoo.com (tmarends) Date: Thu, 01 Aug 2002 19:25:05 -0000 Subject: Pettigrew's debt to Harry In-Reply-To: <20020801124146.63552.qmail@web9205.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 41981 Jackie wrote: >>>The spell which brings Voldemort back to life? "Flesh of the >*servant*, willingly > taken..." I think JKR worded this VERY carefully. I think the > "willingly taken" bit might also cause a teensy problem, since Peter > was obviously frightened into doing it. :) > > We haven't seen any evidence so far that this has made him any weaker, > or more vulnerable to Harry, but I'm also interested in seeing how JK > will tackle this subject in future books - might it affect Voldemort in > the same way that Lily's sacrifice does? As Dumbledore said in SS/PS, > the one thing Voldemort can't understand is love. Well, it seems to me > he doesn't really *get* the whole forgiveness/kindness thing, either. > :) > It was "Flesh of the servant willingly *given*"... What was *taken* was Harry's blood... and, according to the spell, that was "forcibly taken". Peter might have had is doubts, but he willingly gave up his hand. He also got a new shiny silver one to replace it. Don't you use silver to kill a warewolf?? Tim A. From wyldemystic at earthlink.net Thu Aug 1 18:42:18 2002 From: wyldemystic at earthlink.net (Rowena Forest) Date: Thu, 01 Aug 2002 11:42:18 -0700 Subject: Why NOT Lily? (was: Lily, Harry, and Voldemort's demise) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 41982 Kiyari wrote: > Only James and Harry had to die that night it > seems, maybe only Harry, but Lily got in the > way. This brings up something I've been wondering ever since I first read PoA. Why WASN'T Lily a target? Every description of that night implies that Lily was killed only because she protected Harry from Voldemort. Even Harry's own flashes of recall show Voldemort telling Lily to "Stand aside, you silly girl." (It's either during the Quidditch match when he passes out, or when he's working with Lupin on the Patronus Charm. I need to start bringing my books to work *grin*) When I read that passage (and it may indeed just be my interpretation), I get the impression that Lily dying wasn't in the plan. Anyone else get this impression? Any thoughts as to why? Rowena Forest From lizbooks at eircom.net Thu Aug 1 20:20:15 2002 From: lizbooks at eircom.net (alexmalone2002) Date: Thu, 01 Aug 2002 20:20:15 -0000 Subject: The Bloody Baron Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 41983 In the first book we learn that the ghost of the Bloody Baron has silver bloodstains on him. I got to thinking are they just that color because he is a ghost or could there be a deeper meaning there? Obviously the fact he has blood on him is linked to how he died but is it a possibility that is indeed unicorn blood, as it's powers were likely known long before Voldemort put it to use. Was it something to do with a failed attempt at surviving when he was near death, and could this have some relevance to future events? Just wondering if anyone has any theories on this. Alex. From rvotaw at i-55.com Thu Aug 1 20:53:26 2002 From: rvotaw at i-55.com (Richelle Votaw) Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2002 15:53:26 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Why NOT Lily? (was: Lily, Harry, and Voldemort's demise) References: Message-ID: <00d401c2399d$7c7227e0$3ca0cdd1@istu757> No: HPFGUIDX 41984 Rowena writes: > This brings up something I've been wondering ever since I first read PoA. Why > WASN'T Lily a target? Every description of that night implies that Lily was > killed only because she protected Harry from Voldemort. Even Harry's own > flashes of recall show Voldemort telling Lily to "Stand aside, you silly > girl." (It's either during the Quidditch match when he passes out, or when > he's working with Lupin on the Patronus Charm. I need to start bringing my > books to work *grin*) > > When I read that passage (and it may indeed just be my interpretation), I get > the impression that Lily dying wasn't in the plan. Anyone else get this > impression? Any thoughts as to why? That's where I get my "Lily is Voldemort's daughter" theory. :) Long story. Obviously, she couldn't be intended to die, or else her death wouldn've been a "sacrifice" and Harry wouldn've had protection he'd be dead, Voldemort would rule the world and actually we'd have had no books to read to begin with. Anyway, I do think, though, that JKR has a very important reason as to why Lily wasn't an intended victim. And the only thing that I have to go on is the "stand aside" parts and the "I'll do anything" from Lily and the green eyes. There is something about those green eyes. But what? If only I knew what color Tom Riddle's eyes were. Then, it could also be that Voldemort had agreed not to kill Lily in exchange for allegiance from one of his followers. Or something along that line. Richelle From rowen_lm at yahoo.com Thu Aug 1 21:07:48 2002 From: rowen_lm at yahoo.com (Liz Muir) Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2002 14:07:48 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Ages of Hogwarts students In-Reply-To: <1028156726.2717.98317.m12@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <20020801210748.56547.qmail@web20901.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 41985 Richelle wrote: >>Now, on to other characters. According to JKR in an online interview, Ron's birthday is March 1st. So I assume he would've received his letter on or shortly before his birthday, and begun attending Hogwarts the following September. Which makes him almost 5 months older than Harry. That makes sense.<< I always assumed that all students got their letters in the summer, sometime around the end of July. This would correspond to muggle students, who receive letters regarding admissions all at the same time, not when their birthday is. They are all sent out at once in bulk so all students can prepare for the new school year. What if your b-day was Sept 1? You would have only a few days to prepare! Also, the number of days (7-10? can't remember) before Harry's birthday that his letters come doesn't seem particularly calcuated. Also, in the following years, all students receive their letters at the same time. (see COS, erm, when Harry it at the Weasleys? ^^ books not available) >>So how does it work? Letter early and start early or wait nearly a year? Is it like Muggle school where you have to be a certain age by Sept 30th? If she received her letter even three weeks early and ran out the next day to buy her supplies, she certainly did have a lot of reading done in that short time. However, if she received her letter on her birthday and started the next year she would've had plenty of time to absorb the books and practice simple spells.<< I would assume that there is an age cutoff similar to muggle schools. Just judging by Hermione's character, I think she was only ten when she came to Hogwarts. She seems the type to enter school early. :) ===== Rowen Avalon (Liz Muir) "We will not examine how grainy the frosting is. It's a cake. That's all we need to know." "Everyone keeps learn more and more about less and less until finally they know everything about nothing. It's called specializing." "The guilty taketh the truth to be hard, for it cutteth then to the very center." "I have nothing but contempt for a man who can spell a word only one way." __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better http://health.yahoo.com From lilac_bearry at yahoo.com Thu Aug 1 22:03:22 2002 From: lilac_bearry at yahoo.com (Lilac) Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2002 15:03:22 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [FILK] If We Had A Million Galleons Message-ID: <20020801220322.22568.qmail@web40304.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 41986 "If We Had A Million Galleons" to the tune "If I Had a Million Dollars" by the Bare Naked Ladies (Yes, it's a name of a *real* group, and, no, there are *no* ladies, naked or otherwise, in the group.) mp3 link: http://classictunes.50megs.com/mp3.html Dedicated to any Canadians out there (b/c BNL are from the "Great White North", I believe..."Take off, eh?"...okay, obscure SCTV reference for anyone who gets it...) (a/n: Okay, this song is very weird, but it is not any more weird than the original. It is also very repetitive. I highly suggest you listen to it to fully appreciate -- or at the very least, understand -- some of the humor of this filk. It was really funny to me at 1 am...) FRED: If we had a million galleons, GEORGE: If we had a million galleons, FRED: We'd make lots of fake wands. GEORGE: Fake wands that squawk and turn into chickens FRED: If we had a million galleons, GEORGE: If we had a million galleons, FRED: We'd make ton-tongue toffies GEORGE: And send a few to dear old Dudley. FRED: If we had a million galleons, GEORGE: If we had a million galleons, FRED: We'd buy Dad a new car. GEORGE: A nice muggle automobile. FRED: If we had a million galleons BOTH: We'd build our store! FRED: If we had a million galleons GEORGE: We could make-up business cards. FRED: If we had a million galleons GEORGE: Lee could help -- it wouldn't be that hard. FRED: If we had a million galleons GEORGE: Maybe we could put a little tiny spell on the cards... FRED (SPEAKING): Yeah, like it would stick to their fingers and wouldn't come off until they came to the store... GEORGE (SPEAKING): ...yeah, then we'd take the card off *after* they bought at least 3 things! FRED (SP): Hey, some people may not like that! GEORGE (SP): Well, can you blame them? FRED(SP): Well... yeah. FRED: If we had a million galleons, GEORGE: If we had a million galleons, FRED: We'd buy Ron new dress robes. GEORGE: But not dress robes with lace, that's cruel. FRED: If we had a million galleons, GEORGE: If we had a million galleons, FRED: We'd buy a magical pet. GEORGE: Yup, like a Phoenix or a Billywig. FRED: If we had a million galleons, GEORGE: If we had a million galleons, FRED:We'd make tons of canary creams. GEORGE: Oooh, all them crazy feathers everywhere! FRED: If we had a million galleons, BOTH: We'd start our store! FRED: If we had a million galleons, GEORGE: We wouldn't have to floo to our store. FRED: If we had a million galleons, GEORGE: We'd fly on Firebolts cuz they cost more. FRED: If we had a million galleons, GEORGE: We wouldn't have to eat Mom's dinners FRED (SPEAKING): But we *would* eat Mom's dinners. GEORGE (SPEAKING): Of course we would, we'd just buy her really expensive ingredients. FRED (SP): Yeah, that's right, like all the fanciest wizard ketchups. GEORGE (SP): Mmmm.... FRED: If we had a million galleons, GEORGE: If we had a million galleons, FRED: We'd eat a ton of chocolate frogs. GEORGE: But not eat real live frogs, that's cruel. FRED: If we had a million galleons, GEORGE: If we had a million galleons, FRED: We'd make our own bombs. GEORGE: Yeah, like dung-, letter- or cherry-. FRED: If we had a million galleons, GEORGE: If we had a million galleons, FRED: We could buy Dobby the house-elf, GEORGE: Haven't you always wanted a house-elf! FRED: If we had a million galleons, BOTH: We'd own our store! FRED: If we had a million galleons, GEORGE: If we had a million galleons, (repeat 2 more times) BOTH: We'd be rich! ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~ "Tut, tut --- hardly any of you remembered that my favorite color is *lilac*. I say so in Year with the Yeti." --Gilderoy Lockhart, COS --------------------------------- Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Aug 1 22:03:24 2002 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 01 Aug 2002 22:03:24 -0000 Subject: Lupin the ESE, Pettigrew's debt was re: Lupin the brave In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 41987 Dicey: >>So yeah, it appears that when Lupin runs to the Shrieking Shack, it'snot because he thinks Sirius is about to kill Harry, it's because hethinks Sirius is about to kill Peter, perhaps wrongfully. And he'slikely worried that Harry might take revenge on the wrong person. --Dicey, who still likes LYCANTHROPE because it's gloriously creepy<< I didn't want to tie LYCANTHROPE aka Evil!Lupin into the bravery discussion, since there are only a few of us clear-eyed enought to see Remus for what he really is . According to the EverSoEvil poll, people are more willing to suspect even Trevor the Toad of harboring evil in his dark amphibian heart than our long-suffering Wolf. :p But now that you mention it...according to LYCANTHROPE Lupin rushes out to the Willow to get his hands on Peter. He does *not* want Sirius and Peter comparing notes, and he does not want Sirius cleared. He's perfectly happy to have Peter killed though, once the rat has admitted that Voldemort's supporters think he deserves it. It is especially chilling to consider the climax of the Shack Scene in that light, with Harry standing up to Sirius, his friend, and Lupin, his enemy. I always wondered, long before I thought of suspecting Lupin, about JKR's choice of words in describing that scene: **"NO!" Harry yelled. He ran forward, placing himself in front of Pettigrew, facing the wands.** That "facing the wands" places the emphasis on the physical danger that Harry is in, drawing the readers' attention to the threat that Sirius or Lupin might curse him. It struck me as odd, because at that point I didn't think Sirius would still harm Harry to get at Pettigrew, and surely good!Lupin wouldn't let him. Ah, but if Lupin is a DE, then Harry was in far more danger than he realized. Pettigrew's life debt to Harry is then correspondingly greater. I do think that if Lupin is a DE, then Pettigrew knows about it. Pettigrew does not plead with Lupin to spare him, though he begs everyone else. Instead he questions why Sirius didn't let Lupin in on the secret-keeper switch, directing Lupin's attention to Sirius's distrust of him. Voldemort would learn, from Lupin, all the details of Pettigrew's escape, including the Life Debt. Voldemort is definitely arrogant enough to take Pettigrew back in spite of whatever misgivings he has. After all, Snape's life debt to James Potter didn't save him. Besides, subverting a Life Debt would seem the sort of perversity that appeals to LV. There's corroboration of this from Dumbledore. He says, "I'm very much mistaken if Voldemort wants his servant in the debt of Harry Potter," which has a slight but IMO very significantly different meaning than "if Voldemort wants *a* servant in the debt of Harry Potter." Lupin's farewell to Peter is quite chilling: **"You should have realized," said Lupin quietly, "if Voldemort didn't kill you, we would."*** "We" being the Death Eaters, that is...(shiver) Pippin From catherine at cator-manor.demon.co.uk Thu Aug 1 22:03:31 2002 From: catherine at cator-manor.demon.co.uk (Catherine Coleman) Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2002 23:03:31 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Why NOT Lily? (was: Lily, Harry, and Voldemort's demise) In-Reply-To: <00d401c2399d$7c7227e0$3ca0cdd1@istu757> References: <00d401c2399d$7c7227e0$3ca0cdd1@istu757> Message-ID: <$c8ruLBzAbS9Iwza@cator-manor.demon.co.uk> No: HPFGUIDX 41988 In message <00d401c2399d$7c7227e0$3ca0cdd1 at istu757>, Richelle Votaw writes >Rowena writes: >> This brings up something I've been wondering ever since I first read >PoA. >Why >> WASN'T Lily a target?? Richelle continued: >That's where I get my "Lily is Voldemort's daughter" theory.? :)? Long >story.? Obviously, she couldn't be intended to die, or else her death >wouldn've been a "sacrifice" and Harry wouldn've had protection he'd be >dead, Voldemort would rule the world and actually we'd have had no >books to >read to begin with.? Anyway, I do think, though, that JKR has a very >important reason as to why Lily wasn't an intended victim.? I don't buy this importance of Lily thing here - I think it's more to do with the fact that JKR wanted to draw attention to the fact that there was something special about the Potters. Voldemort wanted to kill James and Harry - it was important for him to kill the "last Potters" as Sirius spells out in POA - interesting wording that - not Harry Potter, but the last Potter. Why? If this is the case, I think it's a bit clumsy, because from what we've heard of Voldemort he is totally ruthless and kills for pleasure, so why should he tell Lily to "stand aside"? I'm not discounting anything at this point because JKR has a great ability to surprise, but I think she's giving us little clues here and there that it was the Potters, not Harry, who Voldemort was interested in. Catherine From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Thu Aug 1 23:10:46 2002 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (bboy_mn) Date: Thu, 01 Aug 2002 23:10:46 -0000 Subject: Pettigrews debt to Harry In-Reply-To: <000201c238fe$e74c9680$e6d51b18@cfl.rr.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 41989 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Richasi" wrote: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > Darrin Wrote: > > > ... edited by previous poster.... end, and who will die > > and who will live. My heart tells me I want Harry to > >live but my brain tells me it would be a dynamite ending to > >a story to have -- and I can't take credit for this; a poster > >whose name I can't remember suggested it -- Hermione and Ron > >looking at the Mirror of Erised and seeing their lost friend > >Harry. Richasi Replies to Darrin: > > You know, I don't think I've really thought about that until > just now. One part of me would say having Harry die is a fitting > end to the story. It'd be tragic but predictable. If there's one > thing that we might get from this is that it is usually the > innocent who get killed. So, while it might be poignant >(and rather spooky. Just visualizing the image of Hermoine and > Ron staring into the mirror sent chills down my spine), it might > be even more poignant to have Harry and Hermoine or Harry and Ron > staring in... in a tribute to not only lost friends, but of > those who were innocent. > > Richasi bboy_mn coments: I would like to encourage everyone to read post#41480 Titled: Devastation & Heartbreak (re: Horrible to Write) http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/41480 Where I made some comments about the impact of Harry Potter dying at the end of the book. In summary of that, If Harry dies, I can see an international day of moarning that will nearly bring the world to a stop. The little boy who was the most heartfelt best friend of the world will have died. I see schools closing. I see businesses crippled. I see every magazine, TV show, and newspaper eulogizing the best loved boy in the world. I see a lot of tears falling for a long time. If that's how Rowings wroteit, then I think she should stay true to that and leave it as is. But I truly see international devastation if Harry Potter dies; heartbreading devastation the likes of which the world has never see. Call me crazy, call me sentimental, call me a barmy old codger, but that's what I see. bboy_mn From rvotaw at i-55.com Thu Aug 1 23:44:31 2002 From: rvotaw at i-55.com (Richelle Votaw) Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2002 18:44:31 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Why NOT Lily? (was: Lily, Harry, and Voldemort's demise) References: <00d401c2399d$7c7227e0$3ca0cdd1@istu757> <$c8ruLBzAbS9Iwza@cator-manor.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: <003a01c239b5$62e90f60$b7a2cdd1@istu757> No: HPFGUIDX 41990 Catherine writes: > I don't buy this importance of Lily thing here - I think it's more to do > with the fact that JKR wanted to draw attention to the fact that there > was something special about the Potters. Voldemort wanted to kill James Well, considering JKR has repeatedly stated that something huge about Lily would be revealed over the course of the next three books, there's got to be something about her. > If this is the case, I think it's a bit clumsy, because from what we've > heard of Voldemort he is totally ruthless and kills for pleasure, so why > should he tell Lily to "stand aside"? Exactly. He's not the type to waste time telling someone to stand aside. So there's got to be some reason other than the fact she needed to sacrifice herself not just die. > I'm not discounting anything at this point because JKR has a great > ability to surprise, but I think she's giving us little clues here and > there that it was the Potters, not Harry, who Voldemort was interested > in. Correct again. He had to kill both James and Harry to eliminate the Potter line. Or perhaps the Gryffindor line? If James was the Heir of Gryffindor than any child of his would be. Not just Harry. He had to kill both or James could just have another son (with Lily). Now, speculate with me for a moment, if the whole reason that made him go after James and Harry was that Harry was the combined heir of Gryffindor and Slytherin, he had to kill James to prevent him from producing another heir. If in fact Lily is somehow the heir of Slytherin or carries the line some way, she was no danger to him. Only her procreating with James to produce a combined heir would be a threat. I could be totally off base here, but it does make sense. It's just that Lily is supposedly muggle born. But then, there are cases of adoption etc. if JKR wanted she could make it possible for her to be an heir of Slytherin or whatever. Richelle From sparky60 at bigpond.com Thu Aug 1 23:37:47 2002 From: sparky60 at bigpond.com (Peter and Denise Clements) Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2002 09:37:47 +1000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Lily, Harry, and Voldemort's demise References: <20020801051140.64228.qmail@web21310.mail.yahoo.com> <004801c23965$cbb349c0$13a3cdd1@istu757> Message-ID: <000001c239b5$2a2496e0$0100a8c0@teddi> No: HPFGUIDX 41991 Richelle wrote: > For the heir of Slytherin: > > --Well, Harry did open the Chamber of Secrets. Sure, he didn't use the > creature to petrify or kill > people, but he did open it. Good old Professor Binns stated "The heir > alone would be able to > unseal the Chamber of Secrets." Harry didn't open it for the same > reasons as Tom Riddle, > but he did open it. Of course, he only could do that because he's a > parseltounge. Which is > very rare, but that's about all we know. It could be rare enough to > mean only the true heirs of > Slytherin have it. I have to disagree. It was Ginny who opened the Chamber of Secrets. " Haven't you guessed yet, Harry Potter?" said Riddle softly. "GinnyWeasley opened the Chamber of Secrets. She strangled the schoolroosters and daubed threatening messages on the walls. She set the Serpent of Slytherin on four Mudbloods, and the Squib's cat." pg 266, CoS Harry opened the entrance not the chamber itself. Denise From rvotaw at i-55.com Thu Aug 1 23:52:14 2002 From: rvotaw at i-55.com (Richelle Votaw) Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2002 18:52:14 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Harry's death? (was Re: Pettigrews debt to Harry) References: Message-ID: <006601c239b6$76f51700$b7a2cdd1@istu757> No: HPFGUIDX 41992 Richasi writes: > >(and rather spooky. Just visualizing the image of Hermoine and > > Ron staring into the mirror sent chills down my spine), it might > > be even more poignant to have Harry and Hermoine or Harry and Ron > > staring in... in a tribute to not only lost friends, but of > > those who were innocent. > > > > Richasi > > bboy_mn comments: > In summary of that, If Harry dies, I can see an international day of > moarning that will nearly bring the world to a stop. The little boy > who was the most heartfelt best friend of the world will have died. I > see schools closing. I see businesses crippled. I see every magazine, > TV show, and newspaper eulogizing the best loved boy in the world. I > see a lot of tears falling for a long time. Now let me take this from an educator's standpoint. I see children who were turned on to reading for the first time in their lives being turned off from reading just as fast. I for one would truly be sorry I had ever read the series. Unless JKR manages to do what no one before her has done and make it such a noble and honorable thing for him to die that no one really saw any other way around it. Doubtful. More than likely many many people who began to love reading would find themselves so devastated that they would never want to pick up another book, just in case they fell in love with someone like Harry again and lost him. Still, my best hope for Harry living is from JKR's own daughter. After reading GoF, JKR asked her if she wanted to talk about Cedric's death. She replied "It's okay, Mom, it wasn't Harry. As long as it's not Harry it's all right." Surely she can't break her own daughter's heart. As far as canon to support whether he lives or dies, is there any? As far as I can tell, things that seem like foreshadowing could possibly be: --Dumbledore's death, somehow a result of Hagrid's screwing up ("I would trust Hagrid with my life.--SS/PS) --Ron's death, based on his willingness to sacrfice himself, again in SS/PS Anyone else? So far nothing seems to point at Harry or not. I just wish books 5, 6, and 7 would suddenly apparate in front of me and tell all. :) Richelle From siskiou at earthlink.net Thu Aug 1 23:46:59 2002 From: siskiou at earthlink.net (Susanne) Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2002 16:46:59 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Ages of Hogwarts students In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8772303498.20020801164659@earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 41993 Hi, Thursday, August 01, 2002, 10:55:41 AM, serenadust wrote: > It would be really fun, though if she > addressed this issue in a future book, so that we could flatter > ourselves on having brought this very important point to her > attention . I've been seeing the question about Hermione's age come up many times on different forums, and have to admit, I just don't quite get the importance. What would it change about Hermione's character, should we find out one way or another in a future book? Would it make her somehow "better" to be younger? Turn her into more of a genius? Or would it take away from her accomplishments to find out she started late, because of her birthday? -- Best regards, Susanne mailto:siskiou at earthlink.net From rvotaw at i-55.com Thu Aug 1 23:57:20 2002 From: rvotaw at i-55.com (Richelle Votaw) Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2002 18:57:20 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Harry and the Chamber of Secrets (was Lily, Harry, and Voldemort's demise) References: <20020801051140.64228.qmail@web21310.mail.yahoo.com> <004801c23965$cbb349c0$13a3cdd1@istu757> <000001c239b5$2a2496e0$0100a8c0@teddi> Message-ID: <007a01c239b7$2d251ac0$b7a2cdd1@istu757> No: HPFGUIDX 41994 > Richelle wrote: > > > For the heir of Slytherin: > > > > --Well, Harry did open the Chamber of Secrets. Sure, he didn't use the > > creature to petrify or kill people, but he did open it. Good old Professor Binns stated "The > >heir alone would be able to unseal the CoS." Harry didn't open it for the same > > reasons as Tom Riddle, but he did open it. Of course, he only could do that because he's a > > parseltounge. Which is very rare, but that's about all we know. It could be rare enough to > > mean only the true heirs of Slytherin have it. Denise replied: > I have to disagree. It was Ginny who opened the Chamber of Secrets. > " Haven't you guessed yet, Harry Potter?" said Riddle softly. "GinnyWeasley > opened the Chamber of Secrets. She strangled the schoolroosters and daubed > threatening messages on the walls. She set the Serpent of Slytherin on four > Mudbloods, and the Squib's cat." pg 266, CoS > Harry opened the entrance not the chamber itself. All right, I'll admit Harry didn't actually open the chamber since it was already open. But Ginny really didn't open it, Riddle did, using Ginny. She was sort of possessed by him, or else she would've been completely aware of what she was doing. Nonetheless, again according to Professor Binns: "The school has been searched for evidence of such a chamber, many times, by the most learned witches and wizards." So Harry just happened to find (and open) what the most learned witches and wizards couldn't? Surely not. I still think the Parseltounge thing is more than just residue left from the bouncing of the AK/absorbtion from Voldemort. Richelle From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Fri Aug 2 00:48:38 2002 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (bboy_mn) Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2002 00:48:38 -0000 Subject: Malfoys run riot In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 41995 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Jesta Hijinx" wrote: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > > >As Darrin says "Keep Draco evil, I say! Make him MORE evil!" - > >I totally agree. > > Felinia Comments: > Actually, I have this uncomfortable picture in my head of a > Star Wars-like climax where Draco finally grows up, says > "Enough" and turns on his father at the end. > > Felinia > boby_mn responds: Draco is a rich frat boy (no offense to any frat boys). He is a member of the elite who is so isolated from true day-to-day life that he as good as lives in 'Disneyland'. Draco doesn't have a clue about the real world. He has no idea what it means to get his hands dirty, both in the literal sense and the figurative sense. He lives in a world of false ideals and unchallenged false beliefs. I am reminded of a famous murder case back in the 30's. Two rich boys, who saw themselves as so superior to the world around them, and being so intellectually greater than even a lot of other rich people, all by right of birth. They were breed and born as superior beings, so superior that mundane trash like the police couldn't possibly challenge them . So they commited what the thought was the perfect murder. They were quickly brought back to reality when the police had no trouble tracking them down and convicting them. (Sorry I know that's not directly related, but it's an illustration.) Draco is the same, he is hopelessly deluded by his belief in his superiority. But I have no doubt that the first time Draco has to get his hands dirty; bloody dirty, he will suddenly see the raw cold world the way it really is. The rose colored glasses will come off. I think once he sees what it really means to be a Death Eater; kowtowing to Voldemort and kissing his scaly butt, not to mention torturing helpless women and children for sport; being a Death Eater won't seem so appealing. I'm sure Draco wants power, but where is the power in being king of a destroyed world? Where is the power in oppressing the weak and helpless? Where is the challenge and the accomplishment in being the lacky of a deranged megalomaniac. No, Draco is far too ambitious, far too self-centered, and way to much of a control freak to be a Death Eater. Draco is Lord; Draco is not Lorded over. There is no way his hyper-ego could ever let him play such a subordinate roll. Excerpt from my fan fiction that explains my view (Harry speaking to Draco) - - - - - - - - Power in not making people bend to your will; it's making people willing to bend. Real power in the modern world is economic power. Decimated populations and ruined economies are by no means a force of economic power. I know you hate muggles. I suspect you view them as vermin, and infestation of your own personal precious earth. Well, let me tell you something about muggles, they've got lots of money and they like to spend it. If you use that genius brain of yours instead of being a scaly (...censored...) boy, you'll find ways to make a profit off magic and muggles. You think your family's wealth gives you power. Let's look into the future, and see who has power. I'll tell you who; Fred and George Weasley. Yeah, I know you think their jokes and their Weasley's (..product not mentionable in polite company..) are pathetic, but they are going to turn that into a fortune. Magic or muggle, people have (..a certain not polite activity..), and people who have (..this activity..) need (..this unmentionable product..). And all those (..censored..) people, are going to make the Weasley brothers rich. In twenty years, they will have a fortune that will put the Malfoy fortune to shame. Simply because they found a way to make a profit. Want to trade on your genius? Want to parlay that genius into a fortune? Then figure out how to make a profit. You can still be an evil a$$hole overlord, but if there is any hope for you; you better be the evil a$$hole overlord of some viable economic force. - - - - - - - - - - (hope the moderators don't skin me alive for this) If Draco turns to the side of the Gryffindor Trinity, will he suddenly be a nice guy? NO. Draco was born an a$$hole (sorry, I'm trying to somewaht considerate, but that's what he is), and he will always be an a$$hole. He will just become the Trinities a$$hole best friend. Don't you all have one of those yourselves; a friend who is really a big jerk, but he's still interesting to have around? A guy who annoyes you to death, but who, on the otherhand, is never dull. In addition, I think Draco loves Harry and friend; well, more accurately, he loves hating them. He loves laying awake at night thinking of new ways to mess with their heads. How dull would his life be without them. How utterly lacking in challenge? Who else amoung the other students in that school could even remotely come close to challenging him. Who else could come close to placing the same demand on his wit and intellect. I think he has a deep seated subconcious admiration for them; in a sort of, 'I love hating you' way. All Draco needs is a wake-up call, and I see that call coming soon. bboy_mn From gandharvika at hotmail.com Fri Aug 2 00:49:31 2002 From: gandharvika at hotmail.com (Gail Bohacek) Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2002 00:49:31 +0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Harry's death? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 41996 Richelle Votaw wrote in regard to having Harry "Bite the Big One" by the end of the series: >Now let me take this from an educator's standpoint. I see children who >were >turned on to reading for the first time in their lives being turned off >from >reading just as fast. I for one would truly be sorry I had ever read the >series. I was gleaning over my copies of PS/SS and CoS yesterday & today, making the observation how JKR's style of writing the HP series has evolved from something cool for kids to read to something much more in depth and darker in nature (yesterday in Border's, @ a Harry Potter Birthday festival, I had one mother tell me that she wouldn't let her kids read GoF). PS/SS as far as I know it, orginally started out for youngsters, but we adults can appriciate the humor and subject matter more deeply...and I wonder if JKR isn't tailoring her books now to suit an older audience. Although it would make an interesting, although tragic, way to end the HP series to allow the Hero to die, I do know that all those tykes I saw wearing pointy witch's hats at Borders would be absolutely devistated. Richelle Continues: >As far as canon to support whether he lives or dies, is >there any? And I Say: Professor Trelawney makes the predicition every other chance she gets. Richelle Continues: >As far as >I can tell, things that seem like foreshadowing could >possibly be: > >--Dumbledore's death, somehow a result of Hagrid's >screwing up ("I would >trust Hagrid with my life.--SS/PS) > >--Ron's death, based on his willingness to sacrfice himself, again in SS/PS > >Anyone else? My Turn! My Turn! I was just thinking about this one while I was supposed to be on-the-job (amazing how the body can go on automatic-pilot while the brain is so far, far away...) I think Mr. Arthur Weasley...and my evidence to back it up? I don't have the book in front of me, so I can't quote it verbatum, but when Harry is at the Weasley's house in GoF, there is a clock which tells not the time, but where each member of the family is...at work, traveling, _mortal danger_, _DEATH_.... My twisted mind came up with the scenerio where Arthur Weasley meets up with Mr Malfoy!Death Eater who AKs him in cold blood("Mudbloods and Muggle-lovers first!", isn't that a quote from Draco at the end of GoF?). Now imagine the scene in the Weasley's living room; Molly Weasley going hysterical as she watches her husband's hand on the clock turn from "mortal danger" to "Dead"...the whole Weasley clan, in mourning...now that's heavy! -Gail B. who is glad she is not alone in her obsession with HP. P.S; Richelle sez: >I just wish books 5, 6, and 7 would suddenly apparate >in front of me and >tell all. Ah, but then we wouldn't have the suspense and fun in speculating with what's to come! :) _________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Fri Aug 2 01:26:32 2002 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (bboy_mn) Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2002 01:26:32 -0000 Subject: Harry's death? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 41997 . scroll down . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Gail Bohacek" wrote: Gail responding to Richelle: > ...edited ... > ... PS/SS. as far as I know it, orginally started out for youngsters, > but we adults can appriciate the humor and subject matter more > deeply...and I wonder if JKR isn't tailoring her books now to > suit an older audience. Although it would make an interesting, > although tragic, way to end the HP series to allow the Hero to > die, I do know that all those tykes I saw wearing pointy witch's > hats at Borders would be absolutely devistated. > "...PS/SS as far as I know it, orginally started out for youngsters,..." I don't thing so. While I can't quote it or site the interview, I'm sure Rowlings said that this wasn't written as a children's or young adults (teens) story. It was just a story; a story that happened to capture the hearts and minds of children everywhere. But it wasn't specifically written as a book for young people. Plus, Harry is getting older and his situations are refecting that. Remember the Hardy Boys and Nancy Drew stayed 16 for about 50 years (or whatever). Harry Potter is living in real-time. She had a story to tell and she told that story, and the appeal fell where it fell. bboy_mn From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Fri Aug 2 01:36:41 2002 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (bboy_mn) Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2002 01:36:41 -0000 Subject: The Bloody Baron In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 41998 . scroll down to msg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "alexmalone2002" wrote: > In the first book we learn that the ghost of the Bloody Baron > has silver bloodstains on him. I got to thinking are they just > that color because he is a ghost or could there be a deeper meaning > there? Obviously the fact he has blood on him is linked to how he > died but is it a possibility that is indeed unicorn blood, as it's > powers were ikely known long before Voldemort put it to use. Was > it something to do with a failed attempt at surviving when he was > near death, and could this have some relevance to future events? > Just wondering if anyone has any theories on this. > > Alex. Huummmmmm..... Maybe the Bloody Baron holds the key for killing the supposidly imortal Voldemort. It seems like the 'silver blood' gets mention a lot. I think we know who the Bloody Baron is by now, so it the mention of 'silver blood' really necessary. I think there is something there, and I have alway wondered about the significance of SILVER blood. Also, to be the Slytherin ghost, a ghost feared by ghost and polterguists alike, his Bloodiness must have been a powerful dark wizard. all I can say is ....hummmmmm..... bboy_mn From bard7696 at aol.com Fri Aug 2 01:58:26 2002 From: bard7696 at aol.com (darrin_burnett) Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2002 01:58:26 -0000 Subject: Malfoys run riot In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 41999 bboy wrote: > Draco is a rich frat boy (no offense to any frat boys). He is a member > of the elite who is so isolated from true day-to-day life that he as > good as lives in 'Disneyland'. No offense taken. I'm from one of those working class frats ;) Alpha Phi Omega! Best party punch in the world! > > Draco doesn't have a clue about the real world. He has no idea what it > means to get his hands dirty, both in the literal sense and the > figurative sense. > > He lives in a world of false ideals and unchallenged false beliefs. But I have no doubt that the first time Draco has to get > his hands dirty; bloody dirty, he will suddenly see the raw cold world > the way it really is. The rose colored glasses will come off. Agreed here and I like your analogy to those guys who murdered someone apparently for kicks (I thought that was the 1920s, though) Where I disagree is how Draco will react to that slap in the face. More on that later... > > I think once he sees what it really means to be a Death Eater; > kowtowing to Voldemort and kissing his scaly butt, not to mention > torturing helpless women and children for sport; being a Death Eater > won't seem so appealing. > I'm sure Draco wants power, but where is the power in being king of a destroyed world? Where is the power in oppressing the weak and > helpless? Where is the challenge and the accomplishment in being the > lacky of a deranged megalomaniac. > > No, Draco is far too ambitious, far too self-centered, and way to much of a control freak to be a Death Eater. Draco is Lord; Draco is not Lorded over. There is no way his hyper-ego could ever let him play > such a subordinate roll. > Yeah... but I don't see how this translates into going over to the Gryffindor Trinity -- I really like that name, by the way. If anything, he would try to out-Voldemort Voldemort. Making money probably isn't enough of a challenge for Draco. Too tedious and too much attention to detail. If you're right, he's a big picture kind of guy. No, I could see him making plans to topple Voldemort, and the only reason he would join up with the Trinity is so he could betray them later after they defeated Voldemort. Now... to where I really disagree... I find Draco borderline incompetent. Nothing he does works. He is a punching bag. Right now, I don't think V-Mort would even want him and I'm not sure his father finds him all that useful. Draco has to get a lot more capable before he can choose a side. Right now, he's too proud to be Wormtail and not brave enough to be Neville. My personal preference is for Draco to go evil and stay evil, but I do agree that you've laid out an interesting scenario for him turning to the light. Either way, Draco needs to stop being a joke character. Darrin -- My frat nickname was Rhino. Draco's would be "Pantywaist." From psychchick04 at yahoo.com Fri Aug 2 02:07:32 2002 From: psychchick04 at yahoo.com (Jacqueline Hendries) Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2002 19:07:32 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Why NOT Lily? In-Reply-To: <003a01c239b5$62e90f60$b7a2cdd1@istu757> Message-ID: <20020802020732.94442.qmail@web9204.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 42000 Richelle writes: > He had to kill both James and Harry to eliminate the Potter line. Or perhaps the Gryffindor line? If James was the Heir of Gryffindor than any child of his would be. Not just Harry. He had to kill both or James could just have another son (with Lily). < Now me: I agree that eliminating the Potter line was probably one of Voldemort's main goals, and I also think it's definitely possible that James and Harry are the heirs of Gryffindor (I actually speculate something like this in my fanfic, which you should definitely read sometime :) - it's on Schnoogle, and my pen name is Aloha Moira. But enough shameless self promotion). Richelle continues: > Now, speculate with me for a moment, if the whole reason that made him go after James and Harry was that Harry was the combined heir of Gryffindor and Slytherin, he had to kill James to prevent him from producing another heir. If in fact Lily is somehow the heir of Slytherin or carries the line some way, she was no danger to him. Only her procreating with James to produce a combined heir would be a threat. I could be totally off base here, but it does make sense. It's just that Lily is supposedly muggle born. But then, there are cases of adoption etc. if JKR wanted she could make it possible for her to be an heir of Slytherin or whatever. < But I think: There's no way that Lily can possibly be an heir of Slytherin. In CoS (at least, I think it's CoS) it is definitely said that Tom Riddle is the LAST SURVIVING ANCESTOR (whoops, no, sorry, we meant descendant) of Salazar Slytherin. Now, I know that at this point Lily isn't still alive, but if she was an Heir, so is Harry, and from Dumbledore's lengthy explanation at the end of CoS, he isn't. The whole Pareseltongue thing seemed to be used as more of a red herring throughout CoS, to make the reader wonder whether Harry *could* be the Heir. That was the whole plot of that particular book, and in the end, it's resolved - the Parseltongue and other Slytherin traits are ascribed by Dumbledore to the tremendous shock of magical power that was exchanged when Voldemort tried to AK him as a baby. I think it's possible, even probable, that this and other parallels between Harry and Voldie will be important to the plot of later books, but I definitely don't think that Harry is in any way related to Voldemort or Salazar Slytherin. A theory that I think makes more sense canonically is that Harry (and James) are the heirs of Gryffindor, and there had been some prophecy, maybe a long time ago, maybe Sibyll Trelawney's "First Prediction," that an heir of Gryffindor would be responsible for the final downfall of the line of Slytherin (again, a theory that makes an appearance in my fic ). As Voldemort obviously knows he's *an* heir of Slytherin by the time he's out of Hogwarts, he probably figured out that he's the *last* heir well before 1981. And you know how people who want to be immortal and all-powerful just can't *stand* the idea of having had their downfall predicted... so he goes after the Potters (and possibly others who were descended from the Gryffindor line? There could be more!) in an attempt to prevent the prediction from coming to fruition. So, why *not* Lily? This is a good question. Perhaps he didn't kill her outright because he had other plans for her - we've all heard how good she is with Charms, I bet she could probably manage a stunning Crucio, if she could have been recruited to the Dark Side. Or perhaps she knew something that he needed to get out of her. Or something like that. But more pressing to V was that the Potter males died, so after a little while he decided not to bother with her; surely at this point there were others that could have been recruited. Or maybe he was just so involved with the task at hand that he didn't want to be distracted by having to kill her. Or, maybe it was just that JKR wanted to emphasize the importance of the Potter blood (I feel like someone else suggested this, but I can't remember who, oh well, thanks, whoever you are). Or maybe something else entirely. I do know that we're supposed to find out something absolutely jaw-dropping about Lily Evans-Potter, but I have no idea what it could be. My only guess is that it may have something to do with her eyes, as they get mentioned all over the place in the first four books. Or her family. It's been suggested that Lily's parents were really wizarding (whether they'd been hiding it for some reason, or whether she'd been adopted), but I doubt that very much. Lily, much like Hermione, is JKR's way of expressing that Muggle-borns are often really really good at magic and thus should not be discriminated against. I think it would be taking away from that major point too much to suddenly decide that Lily was really a pure-blood, or even a half-blood. Even a daughter of a couple Squibs. I think it's more likely that she had a really important job in the Ministry... who knows, maybe JKR's trying to throw us off again, and the "big thing" about Lily is that she was a Quidditch player for England. You never know. ;) ~ Aloha ===== jackie04 at brandeis.edu __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better http://health.yahoo.com From alexpie at aol.com Fri Aug 2 02:19:45 2002 From: alexpie at aol.com (alexpie at aol.com) Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2002 22:19:45 EDT Subject: Harry's Putative Death Message-ID: <17f.bff5b60.2a7b4641@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 42001 I believe that I read that JKR said in an interview hat anyone who was familiar with Christian theology knows what's going to happen to Harry. If anyone can find the source, I'd be grateful. And yes, I too, have been fascinated with that little phrase "the last of the Potters." As well as Dumbledore's triumphant gleam and Snape's sudden move. As someone who has worked in publishing all her working life, I try (and it ain't easy) to understand authors, but I do wish that she would just *get on with it!* Ravenclaw Ba From rvotaw at i-55.com Fri Aug 2 02:46:08 2002 From: rvotaw at i-55.com (Richelle Votaw) Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2002 21:46:08 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Why NOT Lily? References: <20020802020732.94442.qmail@web9204.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <001401c239ce$c1b36180$d7a2cdd1@istu757> No: HPFGUIDX 42002 Jackie writes: > There's no way that Lily can possibly be an heir of Slytherin. In CoS > (at least, I think it's CoS) it is definitely said that Tom Riddle is > the LAST SURVIVING ANCESTOR (whoops, no, sorry, we meant descendant) of > Salazar Slytherin. Now, I know that at this point Lily isn't still > alive, but if she was an Heir, so is Harry, and from Dumbledore's > lengthy explanation at the end of CoS, he isn't. As far as Dumbledore knows. Suppose for a moment that Lily and Petunia's mother was raped. It's something Tom Riddle might do, if he were bored, say, and it's not like she'd advertise it. She just had the baby as if it were Petunia's father's. Petunia probably didn't know the difference. Her father may have not known the difference. If he did, he wasn't about to devulge that bit of gossip. Dumbledore would know nothing of this. He is NOT all knowing. Or else he'd have known that Moody was Crouch Jr. and that Voldemort and Wormtail were waiting for Harry as soon as he touched the Goblet of Fire. > (and possibly others who were descended from the Gryffindor line? There > could be more!) in an attempt to prevent the prediction from coming to > fruition. I've got my own little pet theory that Dumbledore himself is an Heir of Gryffindor. Probably the last one that Voldemort planned to go after. He was probably hoping he'd die of old age so he wouldn't have to. > So, why *not* Lily? This is a good question. Perhaps he didn't kill her > outright because he had other plans for her - we've all heard how good > she is with Charms, I bet she could probably manage a stunning Crucio, > if she could have been recruited to the Dark Side. Or perhaps she knew > something that he needed to get out of her. And in Harry's flashbacks she very clearly said "Not Harry, please. I'll do anything." Anything, mind you! That's offering quite a bit. If I were Voldemort, and had a use for her, I'd have said, okay, we'll spare him. Then killed him as soon as her back was turned after I'd made use of whatever she could do. But then, I'm not Voldemort. Thank goodness. Richelle From bard7696 at aol.com Fri Aug 2 02:45:48 2002 From: bard7696 at aol.com (darrin_burnett) Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2002 02:45:48 -0000 Subject: Harry's Putative Death In-Reply-To: <17f.bff5b60.2a7b4641@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42003 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., alexpie at a... wrote: > I believe that I read that JKR said in an interview hat anyone who was > familiar with Christian theology knows what's going to happen to Harry. If > anyone can find the source, I'd be grateful. Wow... I've never heard of this interview. I can't believe, with the number of people poring over HP for clues, that if this is true, someone wouldn't have solved it by now. > And yes, I too, have been fascinated with that little phrase "the last of > the Potters." OK, now I feel thick. WHERE was this phrase? As well as Dumbledore's triumphant gleam and Snape's sudden > move. As someone who has worked in publishing all her working life, I try > (and it ain't easy) to understand authors, but I do wish that she would just > *get on with it!* OK, now we are in territory I can speculate on. D-Dore's gleam: I realize there is probably some epic twist in the offing here, but I have a much more short-term idea about this. What if D-Dore's gleam was just a sporting kind of "Well, that was a good move, Voldemort." I sometimes wonder if Dumbledore's teaching pride got in the way there. Whatever else he was, Tom Riddle was perhaps the most brilliant student ever at Hogwarts and must have been a joy to teach. Snape's movement: My own theory is that the movement was one of surprise. For some reason, Snape did not expect Lucius to be in that circle, which tells me that maybe Lucius has double-crossed Snape. Darrin -- OK, now I'm going to re-read the Bible. From TaliaDawn3 at aol.com Fri Aug 2 03:17:14 2002 From: TaliaDawn3 at aol.com (TaliaDawn3 at aol.com) Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2002 23:17:14 EDT Subject: Sirius' Inconsistencies? Message-ID: <16e.117c812c.2a7b53ba@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 42004 While I was re-reading GoF today, I came across something that struck me as odd. Although I'm not entirely sure if it *is*, so I thought I would mention it here. (Following taken from US GoF, pg.334) "Listen, I knew Bertha Jorkins," said Sirius grimly. "She was at Hogwarts when I was, a few years above your dad and me. And she was an idiot. Very nosy, but no brains, none at all. It's not a good combination, Harry. I'd say she'd be very easy to lure into a trap." Then, later in the book (US GoF, pg.533) "Yes, he's quoted in the article in there," said Sirius, nodding at the paper. "Blustering on about how bad Bertha's memory is. Well, maybe she's changed since I knew her, but the Bertha I knew wasn't forgetful at all - quite the reverse. She was a bit dim, but she had an excellent memory for gossip. It used to get her into trouble; she never knew when to keep her mouth shut. I can see her being a big of a liability at the Ministry of Magic ... maybe that's why Bagman didn't bother to look for her to so long ...." Now, the second passage seems to contradict the first one. In the first one, Sirius is saying she was a complete fool, but then he says she had an excellent memory (for gossip, but I think that's darn near everything, isn't it? *G*). Am I just reading it wrong? Do I not get it? I'm fairly certain that I do. It's been bugging me for a while, that's the real reason I started re-reading GoF again (I *should* be reading Prisoner of Azkaban now, it's the next one in my re-reading order). Because I remembered someone saying she was an idiot and then saying she had a good memory. ~*~*~Talia Dawn~*~*~ (Who apologizes if this has already been discussed) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From magicy2jai at cox.net Fri Aug 2 03:20:27 2002 From: magicy2jai at cox.net (Jai Marie) Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2002 22:20:27 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Sirius' Inconsistencies? References: <16e.117c812c.2a7b53ba@aol.com> Message-ID: <0eaa01c239d3$8c5971f0$0500a8c0@domain316.local> No: HPFGUIDX 42005 Unless I'm misunderstanding you, I don't think you can't be an idiot if you have a good memory. To me, idiot means you lack common sense, something he mentioned in the first quote as well. The idiots of the world tend to remember things very well, and bring them forward at the worst possible moments, so I think. I hope this is what you were asking. Jai [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From psychchick04 at yahoo.com Fri Aug 2 03:26:28 2002 From: psychchick04 at yahoo.com (Jacqueline Hendries) Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2002 20:26:28 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Sirius' Inconsistencies? In-Reply-To: <0eaa01c239d3$8c5971f0$0500a8c0@domain316.local> Message-ID: <20020802032628.39239.qmail@web9203.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 42006 Jai wrote: > Unless I'm misunderstanding you, I don't think you can't be an idiot > if you have a good memory. To me, idiot means you lack common sense, > something he mentioned in the first quote as well. The idiots of the > world tend to remember things very well, and bring them forward at > the worst possible moments, so I think. I agree, I think it's entirely possible for a person to have a great memory and still be a complete idiot. I think the two passages are actually complimentary, even in the second one, he reiterates that she was a bit dim. ~ Aloha ===== jackie04 at brandeis.edu __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better http://health.yahoo.com From divaclv at aol.com Fri Aug 2 03:31:05 2002 From: divaclv at aol.com (c_voth312) Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2002 03:31:05 -0000 Subject: Harry's Putative Death In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42007 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "darrin_burnett" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., alexpie at a... wrote: > > I believe that I read that JKR said in an interview hat anyone who > was > > familiar with Christian theology knows what's going to happen to > Harry. If > > anyone can find the source, I'd be grateful. Hmmm...so does this mean Harry will simply sacrifice himself for the sake of just about everybody, or does it mean that he will pass through death into something greater--or both? I'd like to hear more speculation on the subject. > > And yes, I too, have been fascinated with that little phrase "the > last of > > the Potters." > > OK, now I feel thick. WHERE was this phrase? PoA--Sirius says it in the Shrieking Shack scene, around the point where he's taking down Peter. Whether this is just Sirius' perception of what's going on, or if there's any actual weight to it, I leave it to yourself to determine. > Snape's movement: My own theory is that the movement was one of > surprise. For some reason, Snape did not expect Lucius to be in that > circle, which tells me that maybe Lucius has double-crossed Snape. > My theory too--I think Snape really believes (or wants to believe) Lucius' cock-and-bull about acting against his will, turning over a new leaf, whatever. Discovering the contrary will probably prove to be a key turning point in Snape's character--one which might give him the slap upside the head he's needed for a large portion of the series. ~Christi From alexpie at aol.com Fri Aug 2 03:39:59 2002 From: alexpie at aol.com (barbarahanson) Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2002 03:39:59 -0000 Subject: Snape's Sudden Movement (was Harry's Putative Death) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42008 My theory too--I think Snape really believes (or wants to believe) > Lucius' cock-and-bull about acting against his will, turning over a > new leaf, whatever. Discovering the contrary will probably prove to > be a key turning point in Snape's character--one which might give him > the slap upside the head he's needed for a large portion of the > series. My theory on this is altogether different. I think that Snape thinks that Harry is going to mention him as a Death Eater, catches Harry's eye, and realizes that, perhaps, Harry believes what Dumbledore has said about him (Snape, that is), and realizes that he (Snape) doesn't have to stop him (Harry) from betraying him, because he isn't going to. Hence the speculative glance on Snape's part at the Leaving Feast, as he has realized that, although they mightn't ever get on, they might be allies, nonetheless. And a shout out to whover it was (sorry) who mentioned Bare Naked Ladies, from America's leading Canadaphile-- Ravenclaw Ba From hermonieswand at aol.com Fri Aug 2 02:07:15 2002 From: hermonieswand at aol.com (hermonieswand at aol.com) Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2002 22:07:15 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Harry's death? Message-ID: <11e.14458b5e.2a7b4353@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 42009 I think, also as dramatic as killing our poor hero, is the possibilty that he wakes up and it is all a wonderful dream. This is something i've muled over for a while now, and remember, when Harry met Hagrid, it was right after he woke up. It really could be all a dream, althought, I dont think it is. honeyduke [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From purple_801999 at yahoo.com Fri Aug 2 03:32:18 2002 From: purple_801999 at yahoo.com (purple_801999) Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2002 03:32:18 -0000 Subject: Sirius' Inconsistencies? In-Reply-To: <16e.117c812c.2a7b53ba@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42010 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., TaliaDawn3 at a... wrote: > While I was re-reading GoF today, I came across something that struck me as > odd. Although I'm not entirely sure if it *is*, so I thought I would mention > it here. > > (Following taken from US GoF, pg.334) > > "Listen, I knew Bertha Jorkins," said Sirius grimly. "She was at Hogwarts > when I was, a few years above your dad and me. And she was an idiot. Very > nosy, but no brains, none at all. It's not a good combination, Harry. I'd > say she'd be very easy to lure into a trap." > > Then, later in the book (US GoF, pg.533) > > "Yes, he's quoted in the article in there," said Sirius, nodding at the > paper. "Blustering on about how bad Bertha's memory is. Well, maybe she's > changed since I knew her, but the Bertha I knew wasn't forgetful at all - > quite the reverse. She was a bit dim, but she had an excellent memory for > gossip. It used to get her into trouble; she never knew when to keep her > mouth shut. I can see her being a big of a liability at the Ministry of > Magic ... maybe that's why Bagman didn't bother to look for her to so long > ...." > > Now, the second passage seems to contradict the first one. In the first one, > Sirius is saying she was a complete fool, but then he says she had an > excellent memory (for gossip, but I think that's darn near everything, isn't > it? *G*). Am I just reading it wrong? Do I not get it? I'm fairly certain > that I do. I don't think Sirius's meant she was a drooling moron but more of a shallow flibberty jibbit, perhaps along the lines of Lavender Brown, IMHOP. The ability to remember gossip,dig into other people's business, and then blab it around has never really been considered a valued personality trait by many. > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] -Olivia Grey From lauren58 at snet.net Fri Aug 2 03:35:21 2002 From: lauren58 at snet.net (laureng58) Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2002 03:35:21 -0000 Subject: Heads of Houses Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42011 Hi, I am apologizing in advance if this question has already been addressed, but I didn't find it in the archives. Does being the Head of a House carry with it any job responsibilities for the teacher so assigned, or is it an honorary title only? Towards the end of GoF, when Harry asks for Mr. and Mrs. Diggory, he is told that they are with Professor Sprout, because " she was Head of Cedric's house, and knew him best." (p.693) However, I see no other examples in the books of the teachers who are the Heads of the Houses making any extra efforts to get to know their own students. McGonagall is only seen in the Gryffindor common room on one occasion, when she arrives to tell them to quit partying and get to bed (PoA). She shows Harry some small favors, and Snape blatantly favors the Slytherin students, but the Heads of the Houses, like all the other teachers, eat with each other, have bedrooms and offices that don't seem to be that near to the common rooms of their students, do not seem to act as guidance counselors in the selection of elective courses, etc. With the exception of having the capacity to expel one's own students, the Head of a House doesn't seem to have any more responsibility, relationship, or paternal/maternal feelings towards their charges than any other teacher. The one exception of which I am aware is towards the end of PoA, when Lupin tells Harry that he has resigned because Snape " accidentally let slip that I am a werewolf this morning at breakfast." (423) Of course, he might have meant that Snape told the other teachers at the teachers' table; however, earlier, Hagrid had said "Snape told all the Slytherins this mornin' ." The implication is that Snape was breakfasting with the Slytherin students. This is something that we haven't actually seen; it seems that teachers all eat together and students eat only with their housemates. (An exception to *this* being the Christmas dinner in PoA where Dumbledore dispensed with separate tables and had the dozen attendees sitting together, but this was due to the fact that there were so few people that it seemed silly to sit at separate tables and had nothing to do with who was in whose House.) Of course, breakfast at Hogwarts always seems to be very informal; still, that division between teacher and student seems to hold up, even at breakfast. Now, with all the rereading I've been doing of all four books (I've been reading the series to my son, who is too young to read it on his own, and I have been trying to be prepared to discuss any difficult parts with him) I am *really* enjoying Snape as a character, but still, I would be very upset to see him as the only Head of a House to take a personal interest in his students. From what I've been reading in this listserv (I'm new here, can you tell?) most posters put Snape's age as mid-thirties and as one of the younger teachers at the school, which might ordinarily make a teacher more accessible to his students. However, Snape's sadistic treatment of certain weak students, such as Neville, his scary looks, and his almost constant bad temper make it really hard to believe that any students would want to get to close to him, even his favored Slytherins. Any thoughts? Lauren From purple_801999 at yahoo.com Fri Aug 2 06:58:08 2002 From: purple_801999 at yahoo.com (purple_801999) Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2002 06:58:08 -0000 Subject: Horrible to Write? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42012 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "bugaloo37" wrote: > "bugaloo37" said- >>>>>My question is this: Does't this imply that more STUDENTS will die in the last three books? And doesn't the use of the word "horrible" imply that it will be one of the central characters either Harry, Ron or Hermione?<<<<< IMHO I think the "horrible death" will be Ginny Weasley's. I know she has been more of a background character, but Rowling may use Book 5 to flesh out her character before doing away with her a la Cedric Diggory. With Harry's closeness to the Weasleys her death would always be in the forefront of the remaining books, and if he is somehow involved, a load of guilt. It may also be the catalyst for Ron to take more of an action oriented role and spur him on to perhaps attempt to take on Lord Voldemort himself. Also Rowling stated in an interview that it would be a member of Harry's "fan club". The Creevy brothers are not important enough yet to cause a great deal of angst if they were killed. They seem more likely to turn traitors later on; shades of Wormtail. Ron himself states in CS that Colin and Ginny can join up to start a "Harry Potter fan club". I hope it doesn't come to pass but I can see how this could work in many ways. -Olivia Grey From Erikzamora at hotmail.com Fri Aug 2 11:29:04 2002 From: Erikzamora at hotmail.com (eriktz) Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2002 11:29:04 -0000 Subject: Harry saved from AK by his mother Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42013 I have heard many people say that Harry was saved by his mother's sacrifice to save him. I have been very curious where people are getting that from. I have always understood that Dumbldore said that the reason that Quirrel couldn't touch Harry was because of his mother's sacrifice, not that he was protcted from AK because of his sacrifice. Could someone give me a reference if i am wrong about that? If you can't maybe we have no idea why Harry was able to deflect the Voldemort's AK! erik From rvotaw at i-55.com Fri Aug 2 13:28:44 2002 From: rvotaw at i-55.com (Richelle Votaw) Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2002 08:28:44 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Harry's death? References: <11e.14458b5e.2a7b4353@aol.com> Message-ID: <00bd01c23a28$86dc90e0$aaa2cdd1@istu757> No: HPFGUIDX 42014 honeyduke writes; > I think, also as dramatic as killing our poor hero, is the possibilty that he > wakes up and it is all a wonderful dream. This is something i've muled over > for a while now, and remember, when Harry met Hagrid, it was right after he > woke up. It really could be all a dream, althought, I dont think it is. Actually, my mom thinks my greatest idea yet was just that. That book seven would end with Harry waking up in his cupboard under the stairs. I would be almost as furious then as if he were killed. However, if he were to wake up in the cupboard, get up, stop and check the mail, flip through it and see a letter to Mr. Harry Potter, The Cupboard Under the Stairs, turn it over and see the Hogwarts emblem, that wouldn't be quite so bad. Throughout the books, though, Harry's dreams are usually very real. Often connected to Voldemort. Like the time he saw Bertha Jorkins killed in a dream and woke up with his scar hurting. So I suppose if JKR really wanted to she could just leave us all hanging and we wouldn't know if the dream were an ordinary dream or a dream that would come true. As far as canon to support it being a dream--other than the fact that the dreams are usually real (flashbacks or like the Bertha one) I guess there isn't any. Still, I doubt JKR will make it all a dream, that would be too much! Richelle From rvotaw at i-55.com Fri Aug 2 13:32:32 2002 From: rvotaw at i-55.com (Richelle Votaw) Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2002 08:32:32 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Harry's Putative Death References: Message-ID: <00c501c23a29$0ec29ae0$aaa2cdd1@istu757> No: HPFGUIDX 42015 Christi, on JKR's possible comment relating Harry's end to Christian theology: > Hmmm...so does this mean Harry will simply sacrifice himself for the > sake of just about everybody, or does it mean that he will pass > through death into something greater--or both? I'd like to hear more > speculation on the subject. Well, if that was it he'd have to die to save mankind. But then he'd have to be raised again three days later. So he would become immortal so to speak. I'd never read that quote, I don't know how JKR could write it that way and make it believable, but who knows. > My theory too--I think Snape really believes (or wants to believe) > Lucius' cock-and-bull about acting against his will, turning over a > new leaf, whatever. Discovering the contrary will probably prove to > be a key turning point in Snape's character--one which might give him > the slap upside the head he's needed for a large portion of the > series. Well if that's the case, I wonder if Snape will look at Draco in a different light? If he thought Lucius was on his side then suddenly finds out he betrayed him or something, it would make me feel different! I'd never really made much attention to the sudden movement. I really need to reread GoF! Richelle From nplyon at yahoo.com Fri Aug 2 14:04:33 2002 From: nplyon at yahoo.com (nplyon) Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2002 14:04:33 -0000 Subject: Snape and the Malfoys (was Re: Harry's Putative Death) In-Reply-To: <00c501c23a29$0ec29ae0$aaa2cdd1@istu757> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42016 > Christi said: > My theory too--I think Snape really believes (or wants to believe) > Lucius' cock-and-bull about acting against his will, turning over a > new leaf, whatever. Discovering the contrary will probably prove to > be a key turning point in Snape's character--one which might give > him the slap upside the head he's needed for a large portion of the > series. > To which Richelle replied: > Well if that's the case, I wonder if Snape will look at Draco in a > different light? If he thought Lucius was on his side then > suddenly finds out he betrayed him or something, it would make me > feel different! And now me: I am in support of this theory. Draco has always been Snape's little golden boy and the only explanation I can think of for this is because he is buddy buddy with Lucius. There is no canon evidence to show that Draco is particularly talented at Potions and, although Herminone is and Snape still despises her, Snape does not strike me as the kind of teacher who would treat a student who has negligible abilities with such favoritism unless there were some outside factors influencing him. I think that Lucius was double-crossing Snape, feeding him a sob story about following Voldemort because he was so frightened and how glad he was to be back to normal once His Darkness disappeared from the scene. I think that when Harry mentions Lucius's name, it is a slap in Snape's face, showing him that his friend has been playing him for a fool. Snape does not strike me as the type to trust very easily so I am sure that if he did trust Lucius and that trust was betrayed, it will have serious repercussions for Snape. ~Nicole, whose favorite part of Lilac's "If I Had A Million Galleons" FILK was when Fred and George sang about how they'd buy Ron new dress robes, but not with lace because that's cruel. From rowen_lm at yahoo.com Fri Aug 2 14:04:47 2002 From: rowen_lm at yahoo.com (Liz Muir) Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2002 07:04:47 -0700 (PDT) Subject: The Bloody Baron In-Reply-To: <1028252816.1190.48572.m12@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <20020802140447.43651.qmail@web20907.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 42017 bboy_mn wrote: >>Huummmmmm..... Maybe the Bloody Baron holds the key for killing the supposidly imortal Voldemort. It seems like the 'silver blood' gets mention a lot. I think we know who the Bloody Baron is by now, so it the mention of 'silver blood' really necessary.<< >>I think there is something there, and I have alway wondered about the significance of SILVER blood. Also, to be the Slytherin ghost, a ghost feared by ghost and polterguists alike, his Bloodiness must have been a powerful dark wizard.<< I have to agree that we will find out why the Bloody Baron is covered in silver blood in future books. I'd have to most likely point to the fifth book since JKR has stated that, (on why some wizards/witches become ghosts and others don't) "You will find out much more about that in book five." I'm almost positive that ghosts and their pasts/futures are going to play a significant role in the next book. I can't wait! ===== Rowen Avalon (Liz Muir) "We will not examine how grainy the frosting is. It's a cake. That's all we need to know." "Everyone keeps learn more and more about less and less until finally they know everything about nothing. It's called specializing." "The guilty taketh the truth to be hard, for it cutteth then to the very center." "I have nothing but contempt for a man who can spell a word only one way." __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better http://health.yahoo.com From rusalka at ix.netcom.com Fri Aug 2 14:42:56 2002 From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants) Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2002 14:42:56 -0000 Subject: Snape and the Malfoys (was Re: Harry's Putative Death) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42018 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "nplyon" wrote: > I think that Lucius was double-crossing Snape, > feeding him a sob story about following Voldemort because he was so > frightened and how glad he was to be back to normal once His Darkness > disappeared from the scene. The problem with this theory for me is that it pretty much blows the Competent!Snape theory out of the water, and I'm pretty fond of Competent!Snape. I mean, how useless is Snape going to be as a spy, if after all this time he still hasn't figured out that Lucius is bad news? A semi-intelligent block of wood ought to be able to figure out that Lucius is bad news, especially after he planted the diary on Ginny in CoS. And Snape isn't exactly the trusting, think-the-best-of-everyone type, is he? Marina rusalka at ix.netcom.com From muj at hem.utfors.se Fri Aug 2 15:12:20 2002 From: muj at hem.utfors.se (MariaJ) Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2002 17:12:20 +0200 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Ages of Hogwarts students In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42019 Jo Serenadust wrote: > birthdate would fall into the next upcoming class. My second and > stronger reason for believing Hermione is older is based upon > chapter 16 in GoF where Angelina Johnson is eligible for the > triwizard tournament because she has just turned 17 in October. My > assumption has always been that she was in the same class as the > twins which would make her one of the older 6th years. Canon isn't > really clear on this point though, so if she's still around as a 7th > year in book 5, we'll have strong evidence for Hermione's Sept 19 > birthday making her older than Harry and Ron. Poor Cedric, everyone forgets poor Ceddie. :) In PoA Cedric is introduced as a fifth-year ("Wood had pointed out Cedric Diggory to him in the corridor; Diggory was a fifth-year and a lot bigger than Harry." Ch9) which means in GoF he's a sixth-year. In order to compete in the Triwizard Tournament a student has to be over seventeen ("Only students who are of age - that is to say, seventeen years or older - will be allowed to put forward their names for consideration," Dumbledore says. GoF Ch12) so that means Cedric, a sixth-year, is seventeen. If Hogwarts has the same system that I'm used to here in Sweden where everyone born the same year are in the same class, that means, going by the fact that Harry will celebrate his sixteenth birthday the summer before his sixth year, that around Halloween those sixth-years born from January to Halloween will be sixteen and those unfortunate born Halloween to New Year will be fifteen. The only way Cedric could be both a sixth-year and seventeen is if he's repeated a year, which isn't entirely impossible of course. Despite what the twins say, I don't think Cedric's stupid, but he could have been ill or something. If, on the other hand the cut-off date is September 1st, then those students born between Sept 1st and Halloween would be seventeen in their sixth year, and both Cedric and Angelina could belong to this group of students. Of course, no one in their right mind would claim that maths is my strong side, so I could be entirely wrong. Probably am. Susanne wrote: > I've been seeing the question about Hermione's age come up > many times on different forums, and have to admit, I just > don't quite get the importance. > > What would it change about Hermione's character, should we > find out one way or another in a future book? Well, if Hermione is nearly a year older than Harry that means she'll be celebrating her seventeenth birthday at the beginning of Book 6, and she'll be of legal age in the wizarding world (she'll be eighteen and of legal age in the Muggle world at the beginning of Book 7, for what it's worth). That means she'll probably start taking Apparating lessons, and Hermione being Hermione, passing the test with flying colours. It also means that Hermione and eventually Ron (born in March, was it?) will be allowed to do magic outside Hogwarts without getting angry notes from Mafalda Hopkirk about what under-age wizards can and can't do. I'm sure that'll come in useful at some point during Book 6. And it means that in Book 7 *everyone* in Harry's year will be seventeen, in other words they'll all be adults. I'm sure there are other things that JKR hasn't told us about yet, besides Apparating, that you're only allowed to do when you're legally an adult. Beyond that I can't really see any reason why it would matter, at least not plotwise. MariaJ, beating a hasty retreat into lurkville again From bard7696 at aol.com Fri Aug 2 15:31:35 2002 From: bard7696 at aol.com (darrin_burnett) Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2002 15:31:35 -0000 Subject: Snape and the Malfoys (was Re: Harry's Putative Death) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42020 Marina wrote about the Snape-surprised-at-Lucius-theory: > > The problem with this theory for me is that it pretty much blows the > Competent!Snape theory out of the water, and I'm pretty fond of > Competent!Snape. I mean, how useless is Snape going to be as a spy, > if after all this time he still hasn't figured out that Lucius is bad > news? A semi-intelligent block of wood ought to be able to figure out > that Lucius is bad news, especially after he planted the diary on > Ginny in CoS. And Snape isn't exactly the trusting, > think-the-best-of-everyone type, is he? > I agree it means Snape showed some poor judgement, but I think you're underestimating Lucius' charm and ability to convince. Arthur Weasley and Harry are predisposed to hate him anyway, because Lucius goes out of his way to needle Arthur and Harry is rivals with Draco. But, when you're talking about neutrals or people who were once his friends -- or people who he has donated money to -- I bet Lucius can lay it on with a trowel. If Snape really turned against the Death Eaters, it means he turned against people he was friends with at school. That's a tough thing to do, and he might have willingly believed Lucius in exchange for that camraderie. And I'm not convinced Dumbledore told Snape about the diary. Dumbledore definitely operates on a need-to-know basis and if he had ideas of Snape someday being a plant in V-Mort's camp again, he'd want him as protected as possible from information that could betray him. For that matter, don't only D-Dore, Harry, Dobby and Lucius know for sure about how Ginny got that diary? Darrin -- Considers himself competent, but has been fooled by people many times. From divaclv at aol.com Fri Aug 2 15:44:15 2002 From: divaclv at aol.com (c_voth312) Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2002 15:44:15 -0000 Subject: Harry's Putative Death In-Reply-To: <00c501c23a29$0ec29ae0$aaa2cdd1@istu757> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42021 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Richelle Votaw" wrote: > Well, if that was it he'd have to die to save mankind. But then he'd have > to be raised again three days later. So he would become immortal so to > speak. I'd never read that quote, I don't know how JKR could write it that > way and make it believable, but who knows. > Not necessarily. C.S. Lewis' Aslan is probably the strongest (and most deliberate) Christ figure in fantasy, but you'll notice that Aslan's passion doesn't coincide 100% with Jesus' (to begin with, he's dead for perhaps half a day, instead of three). I think when/if JKR said this, she was speaking in terms of the general archetype--the notion of self-sacrifice and salvation, and perhaps rebirth--rather than in terms of Jesus himself. ~Christi From coriolan_cmc at hotmail.com Fri Aug 2 15:55:19 2002 From: coriolan_cmc at hotmail.com (coriolan_cmc2001) Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2002 15:55:19 -0000 Subject: How Can I Solve My Problem With Kedavra? (filk) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42022 How Can I Solve My Problem With Kedavra? To the tune of How Do You Solve A Problem Like Maria from The Sound of Music Dedicated to Jenny of Ravenclaw THE SCENE: Hogwarts in the mid-1940s. The young Tom Riddle ponders revenge against his estranged father TOM: He broke Mum's heart and made her die Because she was a witch He waltzed away and left his son Abandoned in a ditch. On me bequeathed his own name, an insult to injury. And starting now I'm looking for some payback In Hangleton my father lives a life of sheltered ease But to the Dark Arts library I just now filched the keys To find an answer for this Riddle ought to be a breeze (Segue to the restricted Dark Arts section of the library, late at night. Enter TOM, alone) These volumes sitting on the shelves go way back I'm gonna show 'em that I've got the smarts To master the Dark Arts He inspects the volumes on the shelves. How can I solve my problem with Kedavra? How can I get my wand to blaze green light? How do I do the spell that makes cadavers Who'll swing from a gibbet And will be embalmed Tonight? (He selects an ancient and forbidding-looking textbook and begins avidly reading it. ) Many a risky curse is in these courses Many a chilling charm is in these texts But how can my dad be killed And his beating heart be stilled In such a way that I'm not a suspect? How can I solve my problem with Kedavra? How can I cast a murder with a spell? (Suddenly TOM finds the incantation he needs in the pages of the book) I now can reject the mud of the Muggle whose foul blood Taints my veins while making me as mad as hell Irresistible in power Yet as silent as a flower It's demonic, it's disaster, a death knell. It manslaughters any man Liquidates like nothing can An apocalypse collapsing in thin air (TOM pretends to address his father directly) "My poor mother you reviled, Thomas Riddle, I'm your child, Your King Oedipus, your Mordred, Your nightmare." (Having mastered the curse, TOM exits the library) Now I can solve my problem with Kedavra Now I can make this massacre occur 'Cause when I say the word that is Kedavra He won't know what hit him He will be a corpse For sure Money it seems has bought for him a soft life Money he thinks will keep him safe and sound But to him I'll Apparate And make him Thomas the Late And my dear dad will soon sleep underground. Then I'll have solved my problem with Kedavra Once I have cast a murder with a spell .. (Tom vanishes.) - CMC HARRY POTTER FILKS http://home.att.net/~coriolan/hpfilks.htm (updated today with 34 new filks?) From divaclv at aol.com Fri Aug 2 16:02:44 2002 From: divaclv at aol.com (c_voth312) Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2002 16:02:44 -0000 Subject: Heads of Houses In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42023 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "laureng58" wrote: > Now, with all the rereading I've been doing of all four books > (I've been reading the series to my son, who is too young to read > it on his own, and I have been trying to be prepared to discuss any > difficult parts with him) I am *really* enjoying Snape as a > character, but still, I would be very upset to see him as the only > Head of a House to take a personal interest in his students. From > what I've been reading in this listserv (I'm new here, can > you tell?) most posters put Snape's age as mid-thirties and as > one of the younger teachers at the school, which might ordinarily > make a teacher more accessible to his students. However, Snape's > sadistic treatment of certain weak students, such as Neville, his > scary looks, and his almost constant bad temper make it really hard > to believe that any students would want to get to close to him, even > his favored Slytherins. > > Any thoughts? I wouldn't go so far as to say that. Snape is certainly the most blatant and biased in his regard for his own house, but I think it manifests elsewhere as well. McGonagall also shows a strong house bias, though tempered with a better sense of discipline and in a more covert manner--in CoS, for example, when Snape suggests Harry should be punished by suspension from the Quidditch team, McGonagall instantly decries that as an overreaction. Also in CoS, Snape says something about not being able to properly punish Harry and Ron since he isn't the head of their house, and McGonagall charges the house heads with getting their students organized when it seems Hogwarts will have to be closed down. So the house heads do have some responsibility as far as discipline and guidance are concerned--it would seem to follow that they might be responsible for more intimate council, although we haven't seen much of that as yet. And certainly, the inter-house rivalry is reflected on the faculty level. So I think being the head of a household is more than just bragging rights. From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Fri Aug 2 16:13:21 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2002 16:13:21 -0000 Subject: Heads of Houses In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42024 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "laureng58" wrote: > Hi, I am apologizing in advance if this question has already been > addressed, but I didn't find it in the archives. > > Does being the Head of a House carry with it any job > responsibilities for the teacher so assigned, or is it an honorary > title only? The "Head of House" position in my own school/University system is called "year tutor" and most of the ones I've had (they change every year, since they're asigned to the year, not the house) act very much like McGonnagal does. And believe me, it's no honorary title. How they manage is beyond me, but they get to know their asigned students better than any other teacher, even if they don't seem to do any effort to get to know them directly. My guess is that they weed that information from a variety of sources, not the least among them would be the grades and historial, but also from a few more (although exactly where from only another teacher would know). From that point of view, McGonnagal and the rest "Heads" would indeed have responsabilities. They would be in charge, for example, of redirecting a student whose studies or actions have gone awry. They are also in charge of general well-being of their assigned students, and of giving out major punishments, like expulsion. > Towards the end of GoF, when Harry asks for Mr. and Mrs. Diggory, he > is told that they are with Professor Sprout, because " she was > Head of Cedric's house, and knew him best." (p.693) > > However, I see no other examples in the books of the teachers who > are the Heads of the Houses making any extra efforts to get to know > their own students. McGonagall is only seen in the Gryffindor common > room on one occasion, when she arrives to tell them to quit partying > and get to bed (PoA). She shows Harry some small favors, and Snape > blatantly favors the Slytherin students, but the Heads of the > Houses, like all the other teachers, eat with each other, have > bedrooms and offices that don't seem to be that near to the > common rooms of their students, do not seem to act as guidance > counselors in the selection of elective courses, etc. With the > exception of having the capacity to expel one's own students, the > Head of a House doesn't seem to have any more responsibility, > relationship, or paternal/maternal feelings towards their charges > than any other teacher. As I've said before, my school tutors managed to get to know all their students (with a few notable exceptions) without any need of mingling with them. They are, after all, teachers, and students get very nervous around teachers. They have other ways of learning such information (both magical and non-magical), so there's no need of mantaining a permanent occupation of the students life. On this trend, it is especially important to understand that there must *NOT* be paternal/ maternal feelings for those children, since in most cases it cn lead to unjust treatment of the students. For example, I think that many people would agree that Snape's treatment of Drtaco is wrong - teachers are not supposed to establish such relations with their students. On the subject of counselling, I think that all of the heads will gladly give such help if asked, but will not go especifically to the common room to offer it. If a student needs a bit of orienting, they can always go toi the teachers, but most students I've known (including myself) won't use that help, for some "mystic" reason I've never been able to pin down. > The one exception of which I am aware is towards the end of PoA, > when Lupin tells Harry that he has resigned because Snape " > accidentally let slip that I am a werewolf this morning at > breakfast." (423) Of course, he might have meant that Snape told > the other teachers at the teachers' table; however, earlier, > Hagrid had said "Snape told all the Slytherins this > mornin' ." > The implication is that Snape was breakfasting with the Slytherin > students. This is something that we haven't actually seen; it > seems that teachers all eat together and students eat only with > their housemates. (An exception to *this* being the Christmas dinner > in PoA where Dumbledore dispensed with separate tables and had the > dozen attendees sitting together, but this was due to the fact that > there were so few people that it seemed silly to sit at separate > tables and had nothing to do with who was in whose House.) Of course, > breakfast at Hogwarts always seems to be very informal; still, that > division between teacher and student seems to hold up, even at > breakfast. In this case, there is no need for Snape to be eating breakfast with them. As you've said, brakfast at Hogwarts is very informal, so at any rate, Snape couldn't have found *all* Slytherins there, and I don't think he would linger for hours so he could tell all of them. The most probable thing is that he "randomly" happened to pass near the table, and "accidently" told one of the slytherins (I'd put my money on Draco) about Lupin's werewolfism. That student would then pass on the news by the classical romour process. > Now, with all the rereading I've been doing of all four books > (I've been reading the series to my son, who is too young to read > it on his own, and I have been trying to be prepared to discuss any > difficult parts with him) I am *really* enjoying Snape as a > character, but still, I would be very upset to see him as the only > Head of a House to take a personal interest in his students. From > what I've been reading in this listserv (I'm new here, can > you tell?) most posters put Snape's age as mid-thirties and as > one of the younger teachers at the school, which might ordinarily > make a teacher more accessible to his students. However, Snape's > sadistic treatment of certain weak students, such as Neville, his > scary looks, and his almost constant bad temper make it really hard > to believe that any students would want to get to close to him, even > his favored Slytherins. > > Any thoughts? > > Lauren Most posters put Snape at mid-30s because JKR told that in an interview that he was about 35 at the time of GoF (I'm not completely sure about that number, though. Check the Lexicon for more info at: http://www.i2k.com/~svderark/lexicon and look for Snape in the wizard world section) You mention that he takes a personal interest, and think it's a good thing. I'm not so positive about that. I have found in my experience with diferent sorts of "Heads" (in my case, tutors), that those who take a personal approach to their students are the worst sort of heads. This point, however, is based solely in my own experience, so it's widely discussable. Hope that helps, Grey Wolf, who is back from a extended vacation, and scared at all the backlog of messages he's *not* going to be able to read From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Fri Aug 2 16:24:36 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2002 16:24:36 -0000 Subject: Harry saved from AK by his mother In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42025 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "eriktz" wrote: > I have heard many people say that Harry was saved by his mother's > sacrifice to save him. I have been very curious where people are > getting that from. I have always understood that Dumbldore said that > the reason that Quirrel couldn't touch Harry was because of his > mother's sacrifice, not that he was protcted from AK because of his > sacrifice. Could someone give me a reference if i am wrong about > that? If you can't maybe we have no idea why Harry was able to > deflect the Voldemort's AK! > > erik Goblet of Fire, Chapter 33 "The Deatheaters" (Sp. Edition, liberal translation): "[Harry's] mother died to save him and, without knowing, she was a shield for him that I had not thought of... I couldn't touch him.[...] His mother left in him the traces of her sacrifice... this is ancient magic; I should've remembered it [...] My curse was desviated by the mad sacrifice of a woman and rebounded against me" Hope that helps, Grey Wolf From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Fri Aug 2 17:43:26 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2002 17:43:26 -0000 Subject: A new Lily Theory: The ancient magic witch Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42026 ... at least I think it's new. I've been in the list a long time and, at least as long as I've been here, I've never read anything about it, but there has been an unsual amount of post in the Lily business lately, so you never know. At any rate, as always, sorry if this has been said before. Some of the great unknowns in the Harry potter books is how Harry could survive the AK. Several times, people have asked in the lists how it could be possible that no mother ever tried the same selfless protection on her son. There are, of course, many possible reasons. For one thing, I don't think that AKing children is all that common; possibly a fire spell would work just as well, and not all wizards are powerfull enough to use an AK to begin with (especially two times in a row, I'd imagine). Neither is the specific situation (mother spared that throws in front of the baby; a person cruel enough to kill a baby would kill the mother first) all that common, and I don't believe that V attacked that many families's children without killing beforehand their parents. Still, I agree it could've happened before. Then, why isn't there a few more people with a love-shield protecting them from AKs? well, for all we know, there are such people, but they simply haven't been attacked by AKs in their lifetimes. But you might counter, that that's pretty unprobable. So I got to thinking: we know that there is something special about Lily that we haven't been told yet. We DO know a few things about her, though. First, that she's a muggle-born. Second, that she was pretty powerful (but strangely, that didn't bother Voldemort, and neither she nor James tried even a single spell on V - Harry at least fights back, even if it's useless). But there must have been powerful, recent- mothers, besieged-by-a-dark-wizard-trying-to-AK-their-babies-without- killing-them-before witches before (even if the probabilities of matching the situation are steadily going down by now). Another piece of the puzzle is the nature of the love shield: both Dumbledore and Voldemort describe it as "ancient" magic. I realised a few days back: what do they mean by "ancient"? It's not as if the wizards are all that advanced: they still live iun a medieval world, and their magic seems to be more or less unchanged since the days of Circe (except for new pells). Why is a part of magic called ancient? My answer (and please note this is part of my theory) is that this "ancient" magic groups all the spells that, for some reason or another, have not been used for quite some time, for whatever reasons. Arranging all these thoughts, I developed a new theory: Lily had been studying the ancient magic, probably by order of Dumbledore himself, in case she could find something that could counter Voldemorts rise to power (after all, at that point, Voldemort was winning, and Dumbledore's side was in dire straits). And she *had* found something: the love shield spell, which could stop even the normally unstopable AK, but which required a human sacrifice to make it work (and the person to give his life had to *love* the recipient, too). Thanks to her studies, Lily could command the ancient magic, and when she discovered that she could not stop V from killing her baby, she used it while sacrificing herself. Voldemort probably had studied this ancient magic himself (since it's a pretty nifty spell, especially for duels), but he must have probably discarded it as impractical, since he didn't have any person who'd give his/her life for him out of love. The slip is crucial, though: "[Harry's] mother left in him the traces of her sacrifice... this is ancient magic; I should have remembered it, I can't understand how I forgot about it" (GoF, ch. 33, Sp. Ed., liberal translation) Resuming: Lily had studied a magic that had not been used for countless years, and as such it was *not* known to other mothers that would've shielded their own children and Voldemort probably had heard of her studies, but with the pleasure of the hunt it somehow slipped his mind. What are the ramifications of this theory? For one thing, Voldemort did not think much of that "ancient" magic at that point (which would explain why he didn't think killing Lily was necesary, since it "could do him no harm, and better have her searching something with no practical use"), but he's probably learnt better. The spell that protects Harry while with the Dursleys would be another offspring of Lily's studies, even if it was used by Dumbledore. On another line, James could have been experimenting on another part of magic compleatly, maybe in something related to increasing a child's powers, which would explain why Voldemort went for the father and the son, but not the mother (I hold no faith in the "heir of Gryffindor" theory, since it contradicts with one of Dumbledore's little pearls of knowledge, and one of the main themes of the books: it doesn't matter who your parents were, you're what you make of your own life). Hope that helps, Grey Wolf From SaalsG at cni-usa.com Fri Aug 2 17:53:56 2002 From: SaalsG at cni-usa.com (Grace Saalsaa) Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2002 12:53:56 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Harry saved from AK by his mother References: Message-ID: <002101c23a4d$93474710$253f53d1@DJF30D11> No: HPFGUIDX 42027 Grey Wolf wrote: >Goblet of Fire, Chapter 33 "The Deatheaters" (Sp. Edition, liberal >translation): >"[Harry's] mother died to save him and, without knowing, she was a >shield for him that I had not thought of... I couldn't touch him.[...] >His mother left in him the traces of her sacrifice... this is ancient >magic; I should've remembered it [...] My curse was desviated by the >mad sacrifice of a woman and rebounded against me" >Hope that helps But! Sure, Voldy tells the DE this - but he heard it from Harry when he was Tom Riddle, down in the Chamber of Secrets. And Harry heard it from Dumbledore after his encounter with the stone. In PS/SS, where McGonagall sat waiting for Hagrid to bring Harry to Privet Drive, she asks Dumbledore how, after killing all these people, Voldemort is stopped by a little boy. Dumbledore says something like: we can only guess. And this amazing protection from a mother's love is his guess - which strikes me as a weak and hokey answer. There's got to be a more plausible answer. Grace From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Fri Aug 2 18:09:47 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2002 18:09:47 -0000 Subject: Harry saved from AK by his mother In-Reply-To: <002101c23a4d$93474710$253f53d1@DJF30D11> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42028 Grace Saalsaa wrote: > But! Sure, Voldy tells the DE this - but he heard it from Harry when > he was Tom Riddle, down in the Chamber of Secrets. > And Harry heard it from Dumbledore after his encounter with the > stone. In PS/SS, where McGonagall sat waiting for Hagrid to bring > Harry to Privet Drive, she asks Dumbledore how, after killing all > these people, Voldemort is stopped by a little boy. Dumbledore says > something like: we can only guess.And this amazing protection from a > mother's love is his guess - which strikes me as a weak and hokey > answer. There's got to be a more plausible answer. > > Grace Voldemort could not have heard it from Harry down in the Chamber of Secrets: he was not there; don't confuse Diary!Riddle with Voldemort!Riddle. They're two different beings, and the first was destroyed at the end of book 2, while the second one was licking his wounds in an albanian forest. Even if the 17 year-old boy that created the diary is still around, there is no canon (or any reason) to believe that what one hears the other hears as well, or else the diary!Riddle would've already known about the way Voldemort!Riddle had been vanquised. You also find the answer "magic" inplausible (which I would normally grant as such, but this is a fantasy series about magic, after all). I hope you don't find any easier that a 1 year-old boy could've stoped with it's forehead a curse no-one else had been able to survive before. Anyway, until you find a reason of your own, I have to point out that there have been at least 3 independent references to this "ancient" magic. Two of them are Dumbledore's and Voldemort's identification of Harry's survival as an ancient love shield spell, and the third is Voldemort's identification of Harry's protection at the Dursley's as ancient: "[Harry] has been better protected than he himself imagines, protected by ways thought by Dumbledore a long time ago, when he ocupied of the child's future. Dumbledore invoked a very ancient magic to asure that the boy didn't come to any harm while he was in the care of his relatives" Even if you don't believe in the power of the ancient magic, the two most powerful wizards in the books do, and that's as plausible as it's going to get. Hope that helps, Grey Wolf From chetah27 at hotmail.com Fri Aug 2 18:57:48 2002 From: chetah27 at hotmail.com (aldrea279) Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2002 18:57:48 -0000 Subject: My (somewhat belated) thoughts on Time Travel in PoA In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42029 Dicentra: >>So does Dumbledore know that Harry and Hermione are in the forest with Buckbeak? Is he trying to stop Macnair from finding them? This might be Harry and Hermione's second trip through this time frame, but it's Dumbledore's first. I suppose he could have guessed they let Buckbeak go without knowing they were travelling in time.>> Actually, it's Dumbledore's ONLY trip through this time frame. He didn't go back in time with the Trio, for him Buckbeak is just now being rescued and was never actually executed. But perhaps he can guess what is going on. He more than likely knew the Trio was helping Hagrid with the defense on Buckbeak, and so when the lil hippogriff mysteriously gets away, I don't think it's such a huge mental leap for Dumbledore to assume the Trio played a part in it. Dicentra: >>But then he must have found out (or figured out) that they didn't save Buckbeak during their first trip through that time frame, so that's why he gives them the clue.>> No no no no. Dumbledore went through that time frame ONCE. As Marina points out, "in order for Harry and Hermione to survive long enough to go back in time to rescue themselves, they have to have gone back in time and rescued themselves." So the fact that they are there talking to Dumbledore in the Hospital Wing means that they've already gone back in time and fixed things up. But they don't know it. Now, Dumbledore is the one that figures out that Sirius cannot be proven innocent. But he also knows that Buckbeak escaped. And Sirius is ever-so-conveniently locked in a room with a *window*. I wonder if our dear headmaster had something to do with that? (remember, he also gives the Trio a very detailed description of how to find Sirius's window from the -outside-) Now to account for the clue. When Dumbledore is talking to H&H, Buckbeak has already been saved as far as he knows. So what makes him drop that hint? Hmm....I'm trying to see if anything was mentioned about Buckbeak in the Shrieking Shack scene. Because if you want to be believable when explaining things, it is *best* to go into as much detail as possible. Look at Snape's excellent lies at the end of PoA. He was able to account for everything that happened...why? Because he went into such detail with his lies, and Fudge bought them all(quite the work of an able multi-tasker, wouldn't you say? =P). Now, when Dumbledore went to Sirius, I'm sure Sirius was anxious to prove his innocence. And Dumbledore probably wanted the *whole* story. But I'm not entirely sure that the time allows for such a lengthy tale. Hmm...but oh! Lupin's arrival. Dumbledore would be interested in that. Lupin does mention a "hippogriff" and "executed". Sirius might have been explaining to Dumbledore that Lupin had the Maurader's Map(explanation as to what it is, if Dumbledore needs one) and that he had been watching the kids to see if they were going to Hagrid's or not...something about an execution of a hippogriff or something. But Dumbledore knows Buckbeak was *saved*. So what could that mean? He knows Sirius cannot be proven innocent...but he figures out a way for him to be saved. So he goes to the Hospital Wing and drops the clue, so H&H will save both Buckbeak and Sirius. And he knows they'll succeed in *altleast* one. It's a 50/50 chance for the old gambler. Dicentra: >>So when Harry and Hermione see Dumbledore and his amused demeanor, is he aware of the fact that H&H have changed events? Does he know in that moment that his future self sent them back in time?>> It could be Harry just thinks Dumbledore sounds amused. There's no way for Dumbledore to know Buckbeak had been executed...unless there's some charm that wards off the effects of a TimeTurner, but I think that's a yellow flag violation. Anyways, Harry might not be thinking so hard into this thing as we are(he usually isn't, though, is he? He has yet to go "OH! Maybe Arabella Figg=Mrs Figg?!"), so he might not have realized that for Dumbledore, Buckbeak was never executed. And thus, he could be implying the "amused demeanor" on Dumbledore. Or Dumbledore could really be amused, but just by the fact that Buckbeak did get away. He's happy there was no execution, and happy for Hagrid that he didn't have to watch his pet get killed. No need to read into it anymore. (Yeah, right. =P) And as I already stated above, I think in that point and time Dumbledore does suspect the Trio. But later on in the night he realizes that they were in two places at once. Oh! Maybe Hagrid mentioned the Trio's visit, and how he sent them away. We know how well timed Sirius's attack was. They missed Dumbledore, MacNair, and Fudge by moments. So Dumbledore could have reasoned that, since he saw no sign of anything when he went to the castle, the Trio must not have had *time* to untie Buckbeak and get inside the Whomping Willow. Which means the Time-Turner must have been used. Qaztroc: >>Now why Dumbledore's subtle hint? First, why wouldn't he be more explicit, and just tell them to go and save Buckbeak and use him to free Sirius?>> I think this is just the way Dumbledore is. In PS/SS, he never outrightly tells Harry to go after Voldemort, but he certainly gives him enough clues and tools. And he doesn't *outrightly* say "I want you to use the Time Turner", he just says "What we need is more *time*." And he also says that he thinks two turns will do it. Maybe the old coot just likes to be all subtle. Or maybe he's teaching Harry to be more alert and clever. And maybe it's so he can justly praise them. *They* figured out what to do(with only a couple small hints..)and *they* did it. Same thing with PS/SS. He gave them the nudge, but they innitially took the step, and so the praise and glory is their's. ~Aldrea, (I'm about three or four days behind, and I'm leaving on Sunday for a week...oh, I'll never get caught up after that!) From wyldemystic at earthlink.net Fri Aug 2 14:05:49 2002 From: wyldemystic at earthlink.net (rowena_forest) Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2002 14:05:49 -0000 Subject: Why NOT Lily? (was: Lily, Harry, and Voldemort's demise) In-Reply-To: <00d401c2399d$7c7227e0$3ca0cdd1@istu757> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42030 I wrote: > > Every description of that night implies that Lily was > > killed only because she protected Harry from Voldemort. Even > > Harry's own flashes of recall show Voldemort telling Lily > > to "Stand aside, you silly girl." To which Richelle replied: > That's where I get my "Lily is Voldemort's daughter" theory. :) > Long story. Obviously, she couldn't be intended to die, or else > her death wouldn've been a "sacrifice" and Harry wouldn've had > protection he'd be dead, Voldemort would rule the world and > actually we'd have had no books to read to begin with. My comments: I don't know that I would necessarily believe her to be his daughter. Firstly because Voldemort has shown no signs that those type of connections matter much to him. I also don't think that he would have found anyone "worthy enough" to produce a child with. (Purely speculation on my part of course.) >From the tone of Lily's pleas, I also think that to protect Harry she would have said anything, pulled out all stops. That would include appealing to familial ties if there were any. Unless the Voldemort was extremely patient and the pleading actually was longer than what we've seen, this didn't happen. (But who knows, I could be wrong. :-] ) Richelle further wrote: > Anyway, I > do think, though, that JKR has a very important reason as to why > Lily wasn't an intended victim. And the only thing that I have to > go on is the "stand aside" parts and the "I'll do anything" from > Lily and the green eyes. There is something about those green > eyes. But what? If only I knew what color Tom Riddle's eyes were. > To which I reply: I do agree with you here. There's definitely a reason why it appears to have been only James & Harry who were targets. I guess this is one of those things that we just need to wait and see what further information comes to light. ~ Rowena Forest ~ From wyldemystic at earthlink.net Fri Aug 2 14:22:46 2002 From: wyldemystic at earthlink.net (rowena_forest) Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2002 14:22:46 -0000 Subject: Why NOT Lily? (was: Lily, Harry, and Voldemort's demise) In-Reply-To: <$c8ruLBzAbS9Iwza@cator-manor.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42031 I wrote: > >>Why WASN'T Lily a target?? Richelle continued: > >Anyway, I do think, though, that JKR has a very > >important reason as to why Lily wasn't an intended victim.? To which Catherine Coleman replied: > I don't buy this importance of Lily thing here [snipped] > If this is the case, I think it's a bit clumsy, because from what > we've heard of Voldemort he is totally ruthless and kills for > pleasure, so why should he tell Lily to "stand aside"? > > I'm not discounting anything at this point because JKR has a great > ability to surprise, but I think she's giving us little clues here > and there that it was the Potters, not Harry, who Voldemort was > interested in. My response: I agree, everything we've been told or have seen of Voldemort indicates that he kills for pleasure and without mercy. This is why I find it important that he tells Lily to "stand aside" instead of just blasting right through her. He had no remorse over killing his father. Inflicting pain is one of his favorite punishments. Ginny was used and tossed aside by his sixteen year old self. Digory never stood a chance. All he heard was "Kill the spare." and then he was dead. Voldemort's line ("stand aside") is repeated in more than one re- telling of that night through Harry's flashbacks in PoA. I don't think JKR would have kept it in multiple times if it wasn't intentional. Now, it may be that it was the Potter line and not Harry specifically that Voldemort was after. No arguments there. But Lily was an obstacle to what Voldemort wanted and he hesitated in removing her. I think that means something. ~ Rowena Forest ~ From marc.nguyen at greenheck.com Fri Aug 2 13:20:31 2002 From: marc.nguyen at greenheck.com (Nguyen, Marc) Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2002 08:20:31 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Harry's skill level by book 7 Message-ID: <61E2AF8C78F2D211B0B70008C7F921D50616A90F@orion2.greenops.com> No: HPFGUIDX 42032 What does everyone think Harry's skill level will be at by book 7? I am hopeful it's like Luke Skywalker's Jedi powers in "Return of the Jedi". He's not "mastered" all the powers yet, but can still kick serious butt! I know it won't be comparable to Dumbledore's, but how about Lucious Malfoy, or any DE? Can Harry go mono-a-mono with them and win? No luck, no help, just plain old wizardary skills. Marc From rvotaw at i-55.com Fri Aug 2 19:43:31 2002 From: rvotaw at i-55.com (Richelle Votaw) Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2002 14:43:31 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] A new Lily Theory: The ancient magic witch References: Message-ID: <00f701c23a5d$030dc9c0$c39ccdd1@istu757> No: HPFGUIDX 42033 Grey Wolf writes: > powerful (but strangely, that didn't bother Voldemort, and neither she > nor James tried even a single spell on V - Harry at least fights back, Do we really know that James didn't try? He could've had wand out, ready to do battle and been AK'd before he got half a spell out of his mouth. From PoA (Harry's third flash back while practicing the Patronus Charm) James did tell Lily to "Take Harry and go! It's him! Go! Run! I'll hold him off--" followed by the sound of a door bursting open and a cackle of high pitched laughter. I hardly think James' idea of holding off Voldemort was offering him tea. More likely he simply didn't have time to get anything out. But from Voldemort himself in SS/PS we have "I killed your father first, and he put up a courageous fight." Which means he had to at least stand up and do something or else Voldemort wouldn've said it was courageous. As for Lily, she's the one who had time to do something. While Voldemort was busy telling her to stand aside. But then, what should she do? If she AK's him, then she's no better than he is. Since it is the unforgivable curse. So if she did indeed know this ancient magic that just maybe Harry could be spared if she sacrificed herself than she did do something. But if she didn't know, I guess she was willing to sacrifice herself to allow her baby a few more seconds of life. Which would be the greatest sacrifice of all if she allowed herself to die not truly believing it would save him. Perhaps that is the ancient magic? A love so truly unselfish that you would die to allow another to live only seconds longer? Richelle From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Fri Aug 2 19:45:40 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2002 19:45:40 -0000 Subject: Harry's skill level by book 7 In-Reply-To: <61E2AF8C78F2D211B0B70008C7F921D50616A90F@orion2.greenops.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42034 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Nguyen, Marc" wrote: > > What does everyone think Harry's skill level will be at by book 7? I > am hopeful it's like Luke Skywalker's Jedi powers in "Return of the > Jedi". He's not "mastered" all the powers yet, but can still kick > serious butt! > > I know it won't be comparable to Dumbledore's, but how about Lucious > Malfoy, or any DE? Can Harry go mono-a-mono with them and win? No > luck, no help, just plain old wizardary skills. > > Marc IMO, there are two viewpoints that lead to thinking that Harry will be at the top of his powers in book seven, which we could call the "relative" viewpoint and the "absolute" one. Both are based in a metathinking knowledge of books, especially of adventure/fantasy books. According to the relative viewpoint, Harry will be at the *strongest* point of his powers of the series, which doesn't mean he won't be able to get even stronger, only that we won't see it, since the series will *end* in book seven, and thus if Harry gets stronger it won't be a part of the history. OTOH, the absolute viewpoint mantains that Harry *has* to be at the top of his powers in book 7 because during that book he's going to face Voldemort and destroy him, and that's not something that a half-baked wizard could do. As far as we know, Voldemort and Dumbledore are evenly matched, so for Harry to destroy Voldemort, either he's going to be stronger that Dumbledore or have lots of help (and here's where the metathinking really digs in: I'd expect a final 1 vs. 1, Harry vs. Voldemort, Do or Die scene). Anyway, the point is quite moot, since JKR has not established, so far, a sure way of measuring a wizard's power "level". We can divide them, roughly, into two groups, the ones that can cast AK and the ones that cannot, but apart from that, there is no way I can think of of measuring a wizard's power. Thus, Harry will have enough power to destroy Voldemort (with or without managing to kill himself in the process). Whether that will be the "highest point" of his powers, or just "in his way up", we won't know. Finally, you sugest a way of measuring whose the most powerful wizard by it being the winner of a duel. This is a bad way of measuring it, since the most powerful wizard would always be the one that can say "Avada Kedavra" the fastest (and, still, you'd get quite a high number of draws). Hope that helps, Grey Wolf, who's making up for his long absence by going on a posting spree. From mary_grace_alexandrea.roman at up.edu.ph Fri Aug 2 20:17:54 2002 From: mary_grace_alexandrea.roman at up.edu.ph (queen_of_slytherin) Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2002 20:17:54 -0000 Subject: Harry's Putative Death Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42035 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Richelle Votaw" wrote: > Christi, on JKR's possible comment relating Harry's end to Christian > theology: > > > Well, if that was it he'd have to die to save mankind. But then he'd have > to be raised again three days later. So he would become immortal so to > speak. I'd never read that quote, I don't know how JKR could write it that > way and make it believable, but who knows. > > > Richelle ~~~~~~~ You have a very limited view of the Christian theology if that's the thing you can predominatly think of when considering Christian theology as an influence to the HP plot. The whole series, so far, is a manifestation of an old Christian theology of good vs. evil, with good winning out in the end. We see in canon all sorts of Christian teachings--sacrifice, loyalty, friendship, nobility. In terms of moral lessons, the HP books have an abundant supply. JKR had already written the first four books with great influence from Christian theology--whether it is conscious or unconscious, that I don't know. Nevertheless, we've seen that JK wrote the books in way that the plot manifests Christian theology (though not specific) and still retains its credibility. From lilac_bearry at yahoo.com Fri Aug 2 20:34:29 2002 From: lilac_bearry at yahoo.com (Lilac) Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2002 13:34:29 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Harry's Putative Death Message-ID: <20020802203429.6021.qmail@web40311.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 42036 Ravenclaw Ba said: <<>> Hmmmm....I would be interested to read that interview as well. Does this imply that Harry is a Christ figure, who will sacrifice himself and die to save all wizard and muggle-kind, but then rises again? I think I could live with that, if he does "have" to die. Does this mean a betrayal is in the future? Who would his Judas be? Does this mean Fudge will order his demise because of political pressure from Lucias Malfoy or the like, and then wash his hands of the whole thing, like Pilate? I never thought of the HP series in these terms before because JKR hasn't had blatant Christian symbolism (ala CS Lewis "Narnia" series) in the series. Very interesting..... Lilac ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~ "Tut, tut --- hardly any of you remembered that my favorite color is *lilac*. I say so in Year with the Yeti." --Gilderoy Lockhart, COS --------------------------------- Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Fri Aug 2 20:40:50 2002 From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com) Date: 2 Aug 2002 20:40:50 -0000 Subject: File - VFAQ.html Message-ID: <1028320850.134748735.48559.m12@yahoogroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 42037 An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From clio44a at yahoo.com Fri Aug 2 21:05:04 2002 From: clio44a at yahoo.com (clio44a) Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2002 21:05:04 -0000 Subject: Professor Sinistra, a vampire? In-Reply-To: <20020726191936.41977.qmail@web9207.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42038 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Jacqueline Hendries wrote: > Has anyone noticed that the Astronomy professor, Prof. Sinistra, has > not played a role in any of the books so far? I had been thinking about > this, and wondering whether she might come up more in future books, and > if so, what does her name say about her? I know in Latin 'sinister' > means "left," but its obvious cognate in English is 'sinister.' So... > she's either a DeathEater, or she just has very liberal ideas (hee hee) > Any thoughts on this? W wrote: >I have heard once that our galaxy (?) forms a left (counterclockwise) spiral. This may relate her name with Astronomy, class she teaches.< Impressive thought, W! There is something else we know about Sinistra. Her classes are at night. Now, what does that have to do with anything? (Not sure if anyone already had this idea, but I'd like to introduce you to my favorite theory) Sinistra is the vampire all those hints and bat references within the books are aimed at. Why? 1. Her name has a bad and dark connotation (at least in English) 2. Her classes are held at night. We never hear of her being out in the sun. And wouldn't be astronomy be the perfect pastime for a light- sensitive creature? 3. Her name is derived from the Latin 'sinister', but 'Sinistra' surely sounds more Italian in our ears. Well, what other European country has a language very closely related to Italian? (Hint: think more east) Right, Romania. I don't speak Romanian, but I'm fairly sure the word 'sinistra' exists. Transsylvania is part of Romania after all. And Transsylvania is the home of THE vampire, Dracula. I don't think this Romania connection is too far fetched. JKR mentions eastern Europe fairly often. So far we've had an Armenian warlock (COS), a Bulgarian Quidditch team (GOF), Russian Pogrebins (sp?) (FB),and a villain hinding out in Albania (GOF, I belive). Plus Quirrel encountered vampires in Romania, IIRC. 4. It makes sense to have a vampire in the books, after vampires and bats are mentioned ever so often. For storytelling reasons it would also make sense for the vampire to be someone else than Snape (as it is argued quite a lot), who already has a complex enough background. Now I come to the far fetched part of my theory. 5. It was argued before that Sinistra's mysterious first name could be Florence; the very same who was mentioned to be kissed behind a greenhouse (GOF). The chains of arguments go like this: a)Sinistra is an astronomer- Gallileo Gallilei was the most outstanding astronomer-Gallilei spent big parts of his life in Florence and is buried close by. b)Sinistra sounds Italian- Florence is in Italy, c)the centaur Firenze is mentioned as an observer of the stars- Firenze is the Italian form of Florence. If we assume Prof. Sinistra's first name is indeed Florence, there is another hints to vampirism (although a bit of a stretch). 6. We learn that Florence was kissed by someone. In literature the bite of a vampire has a strong sexual connotation. It is closely related to a kiss (love-bite!). Vampirism has a very erotic compound. Just think of all those movies, when the male vampire finally sucks at the woman's neck. Well, this could just be a further hint to Sinistra being a vampire, but it also can mean more. Maybe she was not kissed, but bitten by someone when Bertha Jorkins stumbled onto the scene. And maybe that would explain the violent reaction of whoever was doing it towards Bertha. Maybe she had witnessed more that she thought. Um, maybe the last part is really too far fetched, but I do believe that Prof. Florence Sinistra is a vampire. Clio, who retreats into the shadows of lurkdom, where no-one can see her pointed teeths. From rusalka at ix.netcom.com Fri Aug 2 21:15:56 2002 From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants) Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2002 21:15:56 -0000 Subject: Snape and the Malfoys (was Re: Harry's Putative Death) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42039 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "darrin_burnett" wrote: > Marina wrote about the Snape-surprised-at-Lucius-theory: > I agree it means Snape showed some poor judgement, but I think you're > underestimating Lucius' charm and ability to convince. Arthur Weasley > and Harry are predisposed to hate him anyway, because Lucius goes out > of his way to needle Arthur and Harry is rivals with Draco. > > But, when you're talking about neutrals or people who were once his > friends -- or people who he has donated money to -- I bet Lucius can > lay it on with a trowel. But Snape's a *spy*, it's his job to distrust everyone, to know who the bad guys are, and not to be taken in by charm. And why would Lucius try to charm Snape into thinking he isn't a true DE, if he believes that Snape *is* a true DE? (At least we'd better hope Lucius believes this, otherwise Snape is in deep doo-doo.) > And I'm not convinced Dumbledore told Snape about the diary. > Dumbledore definitely operates on a need-to-know basis and if he had > ideas of Snape someday being a plant in V-Mort's camp again, he'd > want him as protected as possible from information that could betray > him. Seems to me if there's anyone outhere who really needs to know Lucius' allegiance, it's Snape. How would it betray him to know that Lucius is a DE? It would betray him a lot more if he obliviously went off to spy thinking he can trust his buddy Lucius. I can think of a lot of things Dumbledore might legitimately want to keep from Snape, but "watch out for this guy, he works for Voldemort" is not one of them. Marina rusalka at ix.netcom.com From marc.nguyen at greenheck.com Fri Aug 2 19:10:46 2002 From: marc.nguyen at greenheck.com (Nguyen, Marc) Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2002 14:10:46 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] My (somewhat belated) thoughts on Time Travel in PoA Message-ID: <61E2AF8C78F2D211B0B70008C7F921D50616A913@orion2.greenops.com> No: HPFGUIDX 42040 Aldrea WROTE: >>Actually, it's Dumbledore's ONLY trip through this time frame. He >>didn't go back in time with the Trio, for him Buckbeak is just now >>being rescued and was never actually executed. But perhaps he can >>guess what is going on. He more than likely knew the Trio was >>helping Hagrid with the defense on Buckbeak, and so when the lil >>hippogriff mysteriously gets away, I don't think it's such a huge >>mental leap for Dumbledore to assume the Trio played a part in it. I think this is it!!! Dumbledore thought that the Trio initially *DID* save Buckbeak, without the time-turner. Now, by suggesting that they go back in time, they can do whatever they did before(or rather watch it happen), plus save *another* life(Sirius) by using the first lifeform he thought they saved anyways!!!!! So this is a case where Dumbledore was just TOO smart for his own good and it just happened that the kids figured it out!!! Marc From clare.pilotconsult at btinternet.com Fri Aug 2 19:50:45 2002 From: clare.pilotconsult at btinternet.com (Clare Johnson) Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2002 20:50:45 +0100 Subject: Possibilities for the new DADA teacher References: <1028304181.5084.80723.m1@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <008001c23a5d$e66455e0$e88801d5@e4t0t4> No: HPFGUIDX 42041 How about the possibility of an existing professor in Hogwarts moving across from another subject? In spite of the brilliant explanation (by I'm sorry I can't find who) of why Sinistra is a superb name for an astronomy teacher, she is my best bet. If we are to have a female teacher I can't see McGonagall having time to teach any other subjects as Transfig. isn't optional at any point. Trelawney just isn't up to the job and though we know Hermione rates Prof Vector, to me arithmancy would not deal with enough of the facing and vanquishing your darkest fears inherent in DADA to make it possible for one person to teach both . Then we would have a gap for an arithmancy teacher of either sex, which could bring on one of "the old gang" referred to by Dumbledore in. Any thoughts on this? Clareysage. From weiss145 at aol.com Fri Aug 2 20:07:42 2002 From: weiss145 at aol.com (weiss145 at aol.com) Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2002 16:07:42 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] A new Lily Theory: The ancient magic witch Message-ID: <95.20797a92.2a7c408e@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 42042 I think Voldemort wanted to kill Harry first in front of Lily as an ultimate form of cruelty. He is standing over her, trying to take the baby and she's resisting with all her might. Or maybe he wanted to leave Lily to grieve or maybe...Pettigrew loved her. Hmmm, he goes to Voldemort and says "I'll give you James and the kid, you give me Lily." Seems logical, right? Eruke [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From marc.nguyen at greenheck.com Fri Aug 2 20:20:14 2002 From: marc.nguyen at greenheck.com (Nguyen, Marc) Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2002 15:20:14 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Harry's skill level by book 7 Message-ID: <61E2AF8C78F2D211B0B70008C7F921D50616A914@orion2.greenops.com> No: HPFGUIDX 42043 Grey Wolf wrote: >>Finally, you sugest a way of measuring whose the most powerful wizard >>by it being the winner of a duel. This is a bad way of measuring it, >>since the most powerful wizard would always be the one that can say >>"Avada Kedavra" the fastest (and, still, you'd get quite a high number >>of draws). my reply: I agree with you mostly, but I had thought, from the "dueling club" in CoS, that there was a way for 2 people to spar/fight, without the use of AK. I'd like to call it "wizard boxing". Here, 2 wizards/witches can match skills against one another without the possibility of using any dangerous/illegal spells/curses. From what i can gather, the only curse that cannot be *learned* to block is AK. So, I guess my revised question is, in this "wizard boxing", can Harry match skills against the best wizards execpt for Dumbledore/Voldemort by book 7? I don't think he can beat Voldemort single handedly in book 7, i think there is going to be help of some type for our hero. Also, Dumbledore is 150+ years old, there is a lot that a wizard can learn in that time, and Harry would only be 17, I think if they were to box, Dumbledore would eventually cast something that Harry can't handle. Marc From crussell at arkansas.net Fri Aug 2 20:34:00 2002 From: crussell at arkansas.net (bugaloo37) Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2002 20:34:00 -0000 Subject: Horrible to Write? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42044 In HPforgrownups "David P." wrote: > ...and I believe book 7 will have a fallen hero (a difference between British and American literature> It took me a while to come up with a response-but I think I got one. There are several examples in British literature especially in the works of Charles Dickens-in which the central character-a child has a miserable childhood-and is at some point given an opportunity for a better life (for example- Oliver Twist, David Copperfield). To destroy Harry after having such a miserable early childhood would be the equivalent of Dickens' saying in "A Christmas Carol", "Scrooge did all he could - but Tiny Tim died anyway." IMO, it would not only be heartbreaking but also a poor literary ending to a fine series of books. BUT- you might say that Dickens did kill off his heroes sometimes- as he did in A Tale of Two Cities-HOWEVER, the character who sacrifices himself had little to look forward to- a miserable existence without the woman he loves. Harry will be 17 years old in the seventh book-with a full life in front of him. Letting him enjoy a quiet and peaceful life would be the ultimate triumph over evil. bugaloo37 From hunibuni22 at webtv.net Fri Aug 2 21:15:29 2002 From: hunibuni22 at webtv.net (tjbailey24) Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2002 21:15:29 -0000 Subject: James Potter, do we know him? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42045 I'm not the best at begining posts, so please, excuse that fact! I've been reading all your posts, the more recents ones about Harry defeating the AK, and Lily using ancient magic. All of that makes sense, yet I'm wondering more why Voldemort was after James. He wasintending to kill James as well as Harry, right? What do we know about James' family tree, his history. I don't think we know anything, but maybe we could assume that he is an heir of some sort, something passed from father to son? I'm just talking here, but I'm curious as to your input. Everyone seems so focused on Lily. Voldemort gave her the chance to live, so why do we assume she should have any special "powers"? I do believe that she must have had some other ancestory influence on her *wizarding skills*, however. I just don't know how it all fits in together. Very much looking forward to your thoughts. Tara From atonement24 at yahoo.co.uk Fri Aug 2 22:00:53 2002 From: atonement24 at yahoo.co.uk (=?iso-8859-1?q?Adia?=) Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2002 23:00:53 +0100 (BST) Subject: Why Dumbledore trusts Snape -- a theory Message-ID: <20020802220053.45735.qmail@web21103.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 42046 I'll begin with a quote to set the mood... ' "What makes you think [Snape had] really stopped supporting Voldermort, Professor?" Dumbledore held Harry's gaze for a few seconds, and then said, "That, Harry, is a matter between Professor Snape and myself." ' -- 'The Pensieve', Goblet of Fire, paperback, UK, pg524 *** This is merely speculation. My theory is mainly based on the way Dumbledore's become personally involved in clearing Snape's name as a Death Eater. It only occurred to me this week, and although I've checked the archives, I haven't found anything similar, so please forgive me if someone has suggested this before:) *** Dumbledore has always demonstrated complete and utter trust in Snape. On one of my other lists, someone called it 'unconditional', which I think is a pretty good description. There are plenty of examples of this trust throughout the novels -- such as Dumbledore's claim that "[Snape] is now no more a Death Eater than I am" (The Pensieve, GoF, pg 513), or Snape's supporting role in the last few chapters of GoF, when Barty Crouch Jr is defeated (he is shown in the foe-glass, and is present during the secret meeting in the hospital wing, as Dumbledore discusses Voldemort). Dumbledore's certainly not the only one to dismiss Harry's concerns that Snape is evil. Hagrid, for example, won't hear a bad word against the Potions Master when Harry accuses Snape of stealing the Philosopher's Stone, and although Lupin and Snape aren't at all friendly, Lupin still shrugs aside the rumours that Snape "would be anything" for the DADA job, and allows Snape to brew the potions he needs to combat his werewolf state during the full moon. Clearly, Snape has earned their trust, even though, on the exterior, he seems slimy enough to double-cross them all. Like Quirrell said, "Severus does seem the type, doesn't he?" (The Man With Two Faces, PS, 209). So how has Snape proven himself to Dumbledore? Yes, he became a spy for the good guys, which merits trust in itself, but what, specifically, did Snape do that made Dumbledore realise that he would be trusted *as* a spy? What information did he pass on that made the difference? My theory is that Snape proved himself to Dumbledore before he ever became a spy. That is, I think, Snape once saved Dumbledore's life. This is how my theory goes: One day, during the height of Voldemort's power, Dumbledore fell into the hands of the Death Eaters (or perhaps just Snape himself). I'm sure that, during those times, Voldemort had put a price on Dumbledore's head -- Dumbledore is a very powerful wizard, probably stronger than Voldemort himself (I think it was Hagrid who said that Voldemort was *only* scared of Dumbledore), Dumbledore is one of the few defences the world has against He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named, so Voldemort *needs* Dumbledore dead if he is ever to conquer it. If there ever came a time that Death Eater stumbled across Dumbledore and -- in some quirk of fate -- over-powered him, I'm sure they would be under orders to kill him (or, escort him to Voldemort, and let him kill Dumbledore himself). I think that Dumbledore somehow fell into Snape's hands, and Snape was put under that very dilemma -- whether to kill him or not. But Snape helped Dumbledore escape -- he put his own life in danger in the process, but Snape knew that Dumbledore's life was more important than his own. Dumbledore needed to be alive if Voldemort was ever to be defeated. Snape made that choice. His epiphany, and his saving of Dumbledore's life, would then have directly lead to Snape's decision to become a spy for the good side. After saving his master's worst enemy, there really was no going back. His allegiance has changed, and so had he. Saving Dumbledore's life (if it happened) is unequivocal proof that Snape is trustworthy -- at least, in Dumbledore's eyes. If Snape were a true servant of the Dark Lord, there would never have been any hesitation in killing Dumbledore when given the chance, would there? I can think of no other action Snape could commit that would prove it to Dumbledore just as well as that does. I'd like to bring your attention once again to my original quote, and the way Dumbledore responds to Harry's question about why he trusts Snape so completely: 'Dumbledore held Harry's gaze for a few seconds, and then said, "That, Harry, is a matter between Professor Snape and myself." ' He says this after we learn that Snape was a spy. So Dumbledore is implying that there is a deeper reason why he trusts Snape than that. Also, Dumbledore's phrasing makes whatever he's implying seem very personal. If Snape *did* save Dumbledore's life, then, of course, it would have been. Very personal indeed. So does this mean that Dumbledore is under Snape's life-debt? Possibly. Life-debts are quite important in JKR's world (ie: Snape and James, Harry and Peter) and, ironically, it's usually Dumbledore himself that highlights them (see PS/217 and POA/p311 for examples -- UK paperback versions). I don't think Dumbledore would mind being under Snape's debt-- he found Snape's dislike of that very thing (with James) quite amusing -- ' "Yes..." said Dumbledore dreamily, "Funny, the way people's minds work, isn't it?" '(The Man With Two Faces, PS p217). Perhaps Dumbledore's desire to repay Snape is the reason he is teaching at Hogwarts in the first place? Ah, I'm speculating on speculation now, but I can't help it! If my theory really *is* the reason Dumbledore trusts Snape so explicitly, then it has marvellous implications for Snape's character (I'm a Non-Evil!Snape fan) and it opens a window into Dumbledore and Snape's relationship. I'll leave my thoughts there, for tonight. Thanks for reading, Adia X(A newbie) ===== "We can't fight against obsession. They care, we don't. They win." -- Ford Prefect __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Everything you'll ever need on one web page from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts http://uk.my.yahoo.com From bard7696 at aol.com Fri Aug 2 22:45:27 2002 From: bard7696 at aol.com (darrin_burnett) Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2002 22:45:27 -0000 Subject: Snape and the Malfoys (was Re: Harry's Putative Death) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42047 Marina wrote: > But Snape's a *spy*, it's his job to distrust everyone, to know who > the bad guys are, and not to be taken in by charm. And why would > Lucius try to charm Snape into thinking he isn't a true DE, if he > believes that Snape *is* a true DE? (At least we'd better hope Lucius > believes this, otherwise Snape is in deep doo-doo.) You could argue he's in deep doo-doo anyway if it was Snape who Voldemort was talking about when he said: "One I believe has left me forever. He will be killed." Look, we're all assuming that Snape is going to resume spying now that Voldemort is back and that's the best assumption out there, but it is still just an assumption. We don't know exactly what Snape was doing at the end of GoF and we don't know that it was just resuming business as usual as a double-agent. Or perhaps better put, we don't know what Snape's mission is. We don't know he's going to try and rejoin the DEs as a plant. It's certainly pushing his luck if he does, considering he did once before and at least two people we KNOW aren't trustworthy -- Rita Skeeter and Fudge -- overheard Snape saying he was a DE. But again, there is a difference between Competent!Snape and Infallible!Snape. Lucius managed to fool a lot of people after Voldemort fell. OR... Snape could be disappointed in Lucius. It is possible he was hoping that not every single surviving DE except for Snape and Karakoff would return (Moody/Crouch was on a mission, or else he'd have been there too.) Snape did make a sudden movement when Lucius' name was mentioned. There is a reason for it. This is our theory. > > And I'm not convinced Dumbledore told Snape about the diary. > > Dumbledore definitely operates on a need-to-know basis and if he had > > ideas of Snape someday being a plant in V-Mort's camp again, he'd > > want him as protected as possible from information that could betray > > him. > > Seems to me if there's anyone outhere who really needs to know Lucius' > allegiance, it's Snape. How would it betray him to know that Lucius > is a DE? It would betray him a lot more if he obliviously went off to > spy thinking he can trust his buddy Lucius. I can think of a lot of > things Dumbledore might legitimately want to keep from Snape, but > "watch out for this guy, he works for Voldemort" is not one of them. > But again, he doesn't work for Voldemort until AFTER Voldemort comes back. Lucius -- and the rest of the DE's for that matter -- do not show their true allegiance until Voldemort rises. And Snape isn't going to have to go off and spy without knowing what Lucius is. He knows now. My point was that Snape didn't need to know about Lucius giving the diary to Ginny. Giving Ginny that diary isn't technically doing Voldemort's bidding, at least not intentionally. Lucius wanted to get Arthur in trouble and shoot down the Muggle Protection Act. Sure, that makes Voldemort happy, now that he's back, but if Voldemort never returns, Lucius doesn't want to see that Muggle Protection Act passed. The whole reason he was wanting to ditch Voldemort's belongings was because the ministry was cracking down on him. Looking back, there is obviously reason to suspect that Lucius would return, but until Harry heard the names of all those people in the graveyard, no one knew for sure who would go back and who wouldn't. And Dumbledore, in my opinion, decided that until he knew, he would keep it to himself. Darrin -- Band name: Ginny and the Diaries? What do you think? How about the Burning Dark Marks! From bard7696 at aol.com Fri Aug 2 22:55:22 2002 From: bard7696 at aol.com (darrin_burnett) Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2002 22:55:22 -0000 Subject: Why Dumbledore trusts Snape -- a theory In-Reply-To: <20020802220053.45735.qmail@web21103.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42048 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Adia wrote: snipping the well-thought out and excellent hypothesis: > > > So does this mean that Dumbledore is under Snape's > life-debt? Possibly. Life-debts are quite important > in JKR's world (ie: Snape and James, Harry and Peter) > and, ironically, it's usually Dumbledore himself that > highlights them (see PS/217 and POA/p311 for examples > -- UK paperback versions). I don't think Dumbledore > would mind being under Snape's debt-- he found Snape's > dislike of that very thing (with James) quite amusing > -- ' "Yes..." said Dumbledore dreamily, "Funny, the > way people's minds work, isn't it?" '(The Man With Two > Faces, PS p217). Perhaps Dumbledore's desire to repay > Snape is the reason he is teaching at Hogwarts in the > first place? > > Ah, I'm speculating on speculation now, but I can't > help it! If my theory really *is* the reason > Dumbledore trusts Snape so explicitly, then it has > marvellous implications for Snape's character (I'm a > Non-Evil!Snape fan) and it opens a window into > Dumbledore and Snape's relationship. One problem with the Dumbledore in Snape's debt theory is that Snape hasn't really gotten his way around Hogwarts. Now, this assumes that Snape really wants Harry expelled, kicked off the Quidditch team, and really wants the DADA job. Not to mention really wants Lupin fired and Sirius put back in jail. None of these things has happened and Dumbledore has had the power to bring all of these things about. Granted, there are probably rules to the life debt thing that we don't know about, but it seems like Snape would get his way at least once. :) People with brains that work on 128 different levels would tell you Snape really doesn't want any of this, but I have to lie down with a gin-and-tonic every time I get too far into that. BUT... let me add a twist, if I may, to your theory. What if Dumbledore was in no real danger, but only he knew that? What if he could have saved himself in whatever situation he was in, but Snape, not knowing that, does something risky to "save" Dumbledore? The life debt wouldn't be in effect, because Snape truly didn't "save" D-Dore, but Dumbledore would trust Snape implicity as a result. Darrin -- Rum and ginger ale helps too. From mdemeran at hotmail.com Fri Aug 2 23:13:26 2002 From: mdemeran at hotmail.com (Meg Demeranville) Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2002 18:13:26 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] A new Lily Theory: The ancient magic witch References: <95.20797a92.2a7c408e@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42049 Eruke wrote: Or maybe he wanted to leave Lily to grieve or maybe...Pettigrew loved her. Hmmm, he goes to Voldemort and says "I'll give you James and the kid, you give me Lily." Seems logical, right? I reply: Leaving Lily to grieve seems far outside of Voldermort's modius operandi. He seems to kill without mercy. Leaving her to grieve implies, at least to me, so degree of mercy. He uses the AK curse rather indiscriminately, even going so far as to kill Frank Bryce, an old Muggle. Pettigrew might be that sneaky but I don't think that his love could have gone unnoticed by on of the other Marauders. It has been my experience that when one longs after another person's significant other, especially in a small tight-knit group, it is picked up on by someone in the group. I think had that been true, Sirius or Remus would have mentioned it in the Shrieking Shack. Just my thoughts, -- Meg (who is still trying to figure out how to type in a splint) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Aug 2 23:37:01 2002 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2002 23:37:01 -0000 Subject: Why Dumbledore trusts Snape -- a theory In-Reply-To: <20020802220053.45735.qmail@web21103.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42050 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Adia wrote: > I'll begin with a quote to set the mood... > > ' "What makes you think [Snape had] really stopped > supporting Voldermort, Professor?" > > Dumbledore held Harry's gaze for a few seconds, and > then said, "That, Harry, is a matter between Professor > Snape and myself." ' > -- 'The Pensieve', Goblet of Fire, paperback, UK, > pg524 > > *** Could be that Fawkes had something to do with it...Dumbledore tells Harry: "You must have shown me real loyalty down in the Chamber. Nothing but that could have called Fawkes to you" --CoS Ch.18 Maybe Snape was able to call Fawkes. Pippin From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Sat Aug 3 00:36:14 2002 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (bboy_mn) Date: Sat, 03 Aug 2002 00:36:14 -0000 Subject: Harry's Putative Death In-Reply-To: <20020802203429.6021.qmail@web40311.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42051 Scroll Down For Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . [PS: I know the moderators hate is when I do this (rre. dots above) but that stupid advertisement on the right really screws up the formating.] . --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Lilac wrote: > > Ravenclaw Ba said: > << anyone who was > familiar with Christian theology knows what's > going to happen to Harry. If anyone can find the source, I'd be grateful.>>> > > Commnets by Lilac: > Hmmmm....I would be interested to read that interview as well. Does this imply that Harry is a Christ figure, who will sacrifice himself and die to save all wizard and muggle-kind, but then rises again? I think I could live with that, if he does "have" to die. Does this mean a betrayal is in the future? Who would his Judas be? Does this mean Fudge will order his demise because of political pressure from Lucias Malfoy or the like, and then wash his hands of the whole thing, like Pilate? I never thought of the HP series in these terms before because JKR hasn't had blatant Christian symbolism (ala CS Lewis "Narnia" series) in the series. Very interesting..... > > Lilac > Hummm... there is dying, then again there is dying. The two not necessarily being the same. People die all the time and are brought back to life. People die on the operating table, and doctors bring them back to life. People get electrocuted and by some measure, are dead, but a little CPR brings them back. So here's my plan- For Voldemort to die, Harry has to die. The existance of either of them guarantees the existence of the other. So, Harry makes the great sacrifice and in a heroic battle with Voldemort; Voldermort kills him. In the process Voldemort, once and for all time, destroys himself. Dumbledore and Snape quickly rush in with all Harry's hand wringing heartaching friends. A splash of potion, a wave of a wand, a few of the last remaining drops of the Elixer of Life, and Harry groans, opens his eyes, and says 'Ouch, that hurt! I'm hungry, anybody want to grab a burger on the way back?" Subplot - to reenforce the 'Shield of Love' given him by his mother, another person who loves him (Harry) sacrifices his/her self to save Harry. Example: in book 6, Harry falls in love with Ginny. Later in book 7, Ginny throws herself in front of one of VOldemort's death curses to save Harry. Now he has Double protection of love. Remember, according to the New Testement (although, I'm not quoting), there is no power greater than Love. Heeeey! It could happen. The Bible, the love, the sacrific, and the resurrection. Amen. Although, the other persons idea where Harry wakes from a dream and finds himself in the cupboard under the stair. Is pretty cool. Especially, when he goes and checks the mail, and finds a letter from Hogwarts, but then, that's another thread. bboy_mn From pdo at uwm.edu Sat Aug 3 01:12:15 2002 From: pdo at uwm.edu (pollypocket53132) Date: Sat, 03 Aug 2002 01:12:15 -0000 Subject: Happy Birthday Harry Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42052 Happy Birthday to Harry and JK Rowling!!! By the way, how old would he be this year, since book 5 is so late? Many Happy Returns, Polly From ajl at hanson.net Fri Aug 2 23:12:06 2002 From: ajl at hanson.net (dembeldei) Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2002 23:12:06 -0000 Subject: Voldemort on when someone dies to protect their family Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42053 In reading various posts on Harry's parents' deaths and Voldemort's graveyard comments on them, I wonder why Voldemort calls James 'courageous' for standing up to him while he calls Lily 'foolish' or 'silly' or crazy. What is Voldemort's problem-- is he sexist? Or is he so embarrassed that Lily got the better of him? Dembeldei From sbbritt at yahoo.com Fri Aug 2 23:06:23 2002 From: sbbritt at yahoo.com (sbbritt) Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2002 23:06:23 -0000 Subject: In hiding for 15 years Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42054 Why in HP and the PA it says that Voldemort has been in hiding for 15 years? Is this a mistake or is there more "time turning" going on? Also I read an essay on the time line of Harry and Hermione during thier use of the time turner in HP and the PA I can no longer find it. Any help would be great. "sbbritt" From ajl at hanson.net Fri Aug 2 23:29:06 2002 From: ajl at hanson.net (dembeldei) Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2002 23:29:06 -0000 Subject: Romania Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42055 From: clio44a Date: Fri Aug 2, 2002 5:05pm Subject: Re: Professor Sinistra, a vampire? "3. Her name is derived from the Latin 'sinister', but 'Sinistra' surely sounds more Italian in our ears. Well, what other European country has a language very closely related to Italian? (Hint: think more east) Right, Romania. I don't speak Romanian, but I'm fairly sure the word 'sinistra' exists. Transsylvania is part of Romania after all. And Transsylvania is the home of THE vampire, Dracula. I don't think this Romania connection is too far fetched. JKR mentions eastern Europe fairly often. So far we've had an Armenian warlock (COS), a Bulgarian Quidditch team (GOF), Russian Pogrebins (sp?) (FB),and a villain hinding out in Albania (GOF, I belive). Plus Quirrel encountered vampires in Romania, IIRC." I can help. Well, a bit. :) My thoughts: -the word for 'left' (which was what the Latin root of sinister meant in Latin) in Romanian is 'stinga' (with a diacritical marker over the i so that it is pronounced something like a schwa with an umlaut) although Romanian is derived from Latin and so like it that it still has cases. (One third of the vocabulary-- but not the basic grammatical structures-- shows a Slavic influence due to later invasions.) -Romanian does have the word, sinistru. There is also sinistrat, meaning something bad or someone who had disaster befall them. -Yes, Dracula's castle is in Romania-- I saw it from afar as it is on an island. -Ron's elder brother Charlie has been in Romania studying dragons; we know there are colonies there (Hagrid, Magical Creatures book) -When I visited Romania, I saw no dragons, but then again I spent the whole time with relatives instead of checking out the countryside. >;-) Dembeldei From porphyria at mindspring.com Sat Aug 3 02:14:52 2002 From: porphyria at mindspring.com (porphyria_ash) Date: Sat, 03 Aug 2002 02:14:52 -0000 Subject: Snape and the Malfoys (was Re: Harry's Putative Death) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42056 Darrin wrote, contending that Snape was surprised that Lucius rejoined the DEs: << I agree it means Snape showed some poor judgement, but I think you're underestimating Lucius' charm and ability to convince. Arthur Weasley and Harry are predisposed to hate him anyway, because Lucius goes out of his way to needle Arthur and Harry is rivals with Draco. But, when you're talking about neutrals or people who were once his friends -- or people who he has donated money to -- I bet Lucius can lay it on with a trowel. >> If we're underestimating Lucius' charm and ability to convince, then I wish JKR had given us more indication of it. We don't even see Lucius laying it on thick with Fudge; instead Fudge is flattering and deferential to *him,* evidently because of his contributions. The complete list of people who distrust Lucius on sight includes the whole Weasley clan, Dumbledore, Hagrid and *Fang.* Even Mr. Borgin is secretly hostile to Lucius; he's only deferential to him because he wants his business. Lucius stokes up resentment wherever he goes and he's condescending and hostile to nearly everyone we see him meet in canon. Also, Arthur doesn't simply dislike Lucius because Lucius is always taunting him about his poverty; rather, Arthur actively informs his family that Lucius was a big supporter of LV and was an unrepentant member of his inner circle. I doubt Arthur does this out of spite; it struck me at the time as gossip he'd know from his Ministry connections or his status as a member of Dumbledore's Old Gang. When do we see Lucius lay it on with a trowel? I agree that on some level JKR might want us to believe this, but the evidence we see is exactly the opposite. We see him use bribery and intimidation to get what he wants. When he wanted Dumbledore suspended from his headmaster position in CoS, he didn't cajole the other board members into doing so, he threatened to curse their families. That's not a sign of someone who uses a lot of charm. And of course he uses bribery to get box seats at the QWC, smooth his way out of prosecution and insure his son's position on the Quidditch team. Plus Lucius never takes any pains to disguise his hostility towards Harry, despite advising his son to do so. At the end of CoS he viciously inform Harry that he'll meet the same nasty end as his meddling parents, which rivals Draco himself for letting his true feeling erupt in public. Darrin wrote: << And I'm not convinced Dumbledore told Snape about the diary. Dumbledore definitely operates on a need-to-know basis and if he had ideas of Snape someday being a plant in V-Mort's camp again, he'd want him as protected as possible from information that could betray him. >> Dumbledore operates on a need-to-know basis as far as concerns Harry, who is barely out of childhood. But I'm not sure that extends to Snape who is obviously his left hand man in many respects. I think it would be flinty if Dumbledore *didn't* tell Snape about the horrific actions of the most prominent parent/alum in House Slytherin. Dumbledore and Snape do plot in secret, and they've been doing at least since all through GoF. Snape's Task was obviously the result of something they'd been working out in secret for some time. Also that year, Snape had been informing Dumbledore on potential LV supporters like Karkaroff, so to some extent he was already resuming his old job. In fact I wouldn't be surprised to think that Snape had been telling Dumbledore that Lucius was bad news all along. This would explain Dumbledore's utter lack of surprise at Lucius' connection to Tom Riddle at the end of CoS. Granted Hagrid and Arthur know about Lucius' support for LV and his agenda, but you have to wonder where that knowledge came from in the first place. It seems plausible to me that it could have originated from a well-placed mole among the DEs who would know Lucius better even than Ministry gossip. As Marina said: << But Snape's a *spy*, it's his job to distrust everyone, to know who the bad guys are, and not to be taken in by charm. And why would Lucius try to charm Snape into thinking he isn't a true DE, if he believes that Snape *is* a true DE? >> I agree completely. Snape isn't just competent; he is an extremely suspicious person. He always assumes the worst of Harry, not to mention Sirius, Lupin and Quirrell. Snape can tell when Harry is lying by noticing when he blinks. We've never seen him give anyone the benefit of the doubt. Even with Draco, I don't think Snape is *taken in.* Snape *favors* Draco, meaning he sides with him whether or not it's fair to do so, which is different from being snowed by his charm. I can't imagine how Lucius, given what we know of him, could succeed in fooling Snape. Nor, as Marina remarks, can I see any need for him to do so. Many former DEs snuck out of punishment by claiming Imperius, but I doubt they need to fool each other about it. Snape is certainly acting very 'grey' amongst his Slytherin charges. He gives them no indication of his true loyalty to Dumbledore, which makes me think that he's at least trying to appear potentially 'DE-friendly' to his students' parents. Darrin later remarked: << Giving Ginny that diary isn't technically doing Voldemort's bidding, at least not intentionally. >> I agree that Lucius did that for his own personal reasons, his vendetta against Arthur and his fear of the Ministry's interference. But it's still a pretty strong indication of what type of man Lucius is. He hates Muggle-born magical children to the point of scheming to kill them. He's still unaverse to criminal behavior, and he still supports one of LV's key appeals to his followers. To me that's a strong indication that he's not so 'reformed' that he won't at least ride along with LV should he return. I agree that we really don't know if Snape's task is to spy again. But I also agree that Snape's 'sudden movement' is meaningful somehow, and that it points to Snape's past, present or prospective relationship with Lucius somehow. I have a feeling this is indicative of some future subplot between these two, which has already been hinted at in Snape and Draco's mutual displays of support for each other. I just don't think that Snape's reaction to Lucius' name is surprise or shock; I suspect it's some other strong feeling. I'm being argumentative with Darrin today, but someday I promise I will post all my support for his 'Snape hates teaching but is stuck at Hogwarts' theory, which I really do support. ~~Porphyria From kkearney at students.miami.edu Sat Aug 3 02:17:11 2002 From: kkearney at students.miami.edu (corinthum) Date: Sat, 03 Aug 2002 02:17:11 -0000 Subject: Lily's death or her love? (was Re: A new Lily Theory: The ancient magic witch) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42057 Grey Wolf wrote: > Arranging all these thoughts, I developed a new theory: Lily had >been > studying the ancient magic, probably by order of Dumbledore >himself, in > case she could find something that could counter Voldemorts rise to > power (after all, at that point, Voldemort was winning, and > Dumbledore's side was in dire straits). And she *had* found >something: > the love shield spell, which could stop even the normally >unstopable > AK, but which required a human sacrifice to make it work (and the > person to give his life had to *love* the recipient, too). Thanks >to > her studies, Lily could command the ancient magic, and when she > discovered that she could not stop V from killing her baby, she >used it > while sacrificing herself. And I modify: Hmm, I like the idea that Lily was studying ancient spells as a last resort to defeating Voldemort. However, I have a different idea as to the type of spell this might be. I have never liked the idea of Lily not fighting back when Voldemort entered the room. It seems inconsistent with the other info we have regarding her, little though that may be. We know she was an intelligent, skilled witch who was talented enough at opposing the dark arts to be one of Dumbledore's most trusted agents (okay, I know this characterization is loosly based speculation, but assume it to be true for a moment). Why on earth wouldn't she have attempted to run or fight back? Perhaps she did do something. Perhaps she realized the danger her son was in and realized running with him at that moment, or opposing Voldemort, was futile. For some reason, Voldemort was determined to kill her child, and would not simply give in if held off in this particular attack. But she suddenly remembered a spell she had come across that repelled the Avada Kedavra curse. A complicated spell, which would take a while to perform. She wouldn't have time to perform this spell and save herself as well. So she is forced to make a choice: 1) take Harry and run while James delays Voldemort, thus saving herself and her son, but possibly (probably, considering Voldemort's power at the time) only delaying an eventual successful attack on Harry; or 2) perform the ancient spell, thus saving Harry, but leaving her with no time to escape. Lily chooses the latter. She begins the spell. Voldemort enters, and tells her to stand aside. Lily, after all, does not seem to be fighting him, and as his target is so near he sees no reason to kill her. Until he realizes the spell she is attempting. He then kills her, without realizing that he is too late. The rest is history. In this instance, Lily's death isn't actually necessary for the ancient magic to work. Luckily for my theory, the books never actually state that Lily's death saved Harry that night. "'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 your mother's for you leaves its own mark...to have been loved so deeply, even though the person who loved us is gone, will give us some protection forever. It is in your very skin...'" (SS p.299) Note the wording. Lily's love, not sacrifice. The phrase "your mother died to save you" can be taken two ways. 1) The usual interpretation, that Lily's death itself saved Harry. 2) That Lily died because she chose to save Harry rather than herself. Harry understands it to mean the first , and later taunts Riddle with this in the Chamber of Secrets. Riddle seems to confirm that the sacrificial-countercharm exists, but he immediately turns his statement into an insult. "Riddle's face contorted. Then he forced it into an awful smile. 'So, your mother died to save you. Yes, that's a powerful countercharm. I can see now..there is nothing special about you after all...." (CoS, p.317) Perhaps this can be looked at another way. Perhaps Riddle's anger was not at the insults (he knows, after all, that he is no longer strong) but at the fact that Harry doesn't really know how he escaped any more than Riddle does. To be fair, there is one quote that may hurt my theory. In GoF, p.658, Voldemort says "...there is no Dumbledore to help him, and no mother to die for him...." before dueling with Harry. But then, Vodemort was impatient, and saying, "no mother to attempt to perform an ancient spell, which would have prevented me from killing the boy whom I had hunted for so long, and causing to to waste precious time in killing her, which turned out to be unnecessary anyway since she had already successfully protected her child" would have been quite a mouthful. :) Well, that's my theory. Lily's death wasn't the cause of Harry survival. Instead, she chose to protect Harry rather than save herself. Her love for him (and he ability with ancient magic) saved him. -Corinth From lmccabe at sonic.net Sat Aug 3 02:58:00 2002 From: lmccabe at sonic.net (Linda C. McCabe) Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2002 19:58:00 -0700 Subject: Harry's Putative Death- link provided Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42058 Athena, the Greek Goddess of Wisdom and Victory looks at the requests bestowed upon her by mortals and sees a parchment that interests her: I believe that I read that JKR said in an interview that anyone who was familiar with Christian theology knows what's going to happen to Harry. If anyone can find the source, I'd be grateful. And yes, I too, have been fascinated with that little phrase "the last of the Potters." As well as Dumbledore's triumphant gleam and Snape's sudden move. As someone who has worked in publishing all her working life, I try (and it ain't easy) to understand authors, but I do wish that she would just *get on with it!* Ravenclaw Ba The goddess turns to her constant companion Nike. "I think there was a great discussion about this months ago. I believe it was from the American Prospect journal. Please look in that great sheaf of parchments over there." Nike did as she was commanded. After a little searching she found the original message was posted in March by the Catlady #36876. the title is Fantasia: The Gospel According to C.S. Lewis. http://www.prospect.org/print/V13/4/nelson-m.html (Slight OT rant here: anyone who wishes to respond to this, please take to OT-Chatter) Athena nodded at Nike. "Yes, I remember that article well. I also am very fond of that journal. It was easy for me to remember the source because of my fondness for it. The American Prospect had the courage to print an article condemning what I thought was the most egregious miscarriage of justice. Namely the Bush vs. Gore decision. Where the judicial branch appointed the executive branch. Yale law professor Bruce Ackerman put forth the brave proposal that should there be any vacancies in the Supreme Court during this current presidential administration that they remain vacant. Otherwise it is as if the judicial branch were being allowed to name their own successors. I only wish that the U.S. Senators that are bound by law to uphold their Constitutional oaths of office would come out and publicly support such a proposal. http://www.prospect.org/print/V12/3/ackerman-b.html " And a bit of shameless self promotion: There was discussion in the last few weeks regarding who the next DADA instructor might be and the significance of Arabella Figg. As well as a discussion regarding Privet Drive security. I have been working diligently on my own fan fic dealing with these issues and I have taken many ideas and theories that I liked from HPfGU and wove them together. You can see my writing at: http://www.schnoogle.com/authors/lcmccabe/SBSL01.html I do subscribe to the idea that Arabella will be the next DADA instructor. I also have her romantically paired with Sirius Black, in a ship that I've called LOVE WAS BUST. Love Overcomes Voldemort's Evil With Arabella and Sirius's Built Up Sexual Tension. (Sigh). Warning: The first two chapters are quite steamy. It is rated R, but we're all grown ups here, aren't we? Athena From editor at texas.net Sat Aug 3 03:13:55 2002 From: editor at texas.net (Amanda Geist) Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2002 22:13:55 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Voldemort on when someone dies to protect their family References: Message-ID: <003401c23a9b$cefe2820$147763d1@texas.net> No: HPFGUIDX 42059 Dembeldei (interesting moniker) observed: > In reading various posts on Harry's parents' deaths and Voldemort's > graveyard comments on them, I wonder why Voldemort calls > James 'courageous' for standing up to him while he calls > Lily 'foolish' or 'silly' or crazy. What is Voldemort's problem-- is > he sexist? Or is he so embarrassed that Lily got the better of him? One reason may be that James had to die, and Lily didn't, necessarily. Supported somewhat by Voldemort saying she didn't have to die (which I personally think is untrue, I think he was just saying stuff he thought might make her move). Perhaps he considers James courageous for standing up to inevitable certain death, and Lily foolish for standing up to an unnecessary one. It was all I could come up with. I've had a week of Girl Scout Twilight Camp, give me a break. --Amanda From chetah27 at hotmail.com Sat Aug 3 03:19:07 2002 From: chetah27 at hotmail.com (aldrea279) Date: Sat, 03 Aug 2002 03:19:07 -0000 Subject: Molly for the DADA job (WAS Re: Will Snape get the DADA job in book 5?) In-Reply-To: <000b01c23804$0b8d00d0$a74053d1@DJF30D11> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42060 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Grace Saalsaa" wrote: > Just think how fun that would be to the story. Her own kids have her for a teacher. It would take some clever sneakiness on their part to get past Molly. Can you see her putting Draco in place, standing up to Lucius, and being closer and more of the mother figure that Harry so desparately misses? And maybe being right there, she pays more attention to how special Ron is whom she doesn't quite seem to notice. > Go Molly! Oh! I hadn't heard of this theory before, but I like it! Infact, I think I like it more than Mrs. Figg as DADA teacher...I don't know, that's a toughie. But anways, either one would provide some fun antics. Could you imagine the look on the Dursley's face when they find out that poor old Mrs. Figg is a *gasp* witch?! Or on Ron's, when he finds out his mum is going to teach him how to fend off Voldemort? Or, once more, on Draco's when the lady who he made fun of for being "plump" is now going to teach him(and have the power to take house points)? I think they are the two prime candidates for DADA teacher and, in my mind, completely bump Fleur out of the runnings. Then again, that third mystery candidate, the one that becomes DADA teacher and gets introduced to us in the same book, could always be interesting. But she's done that with practically every DADA teacher so far...but who knows. Anyways, I like this thought. Molly would definately make a great teacher, *if* she has good knowledge of the DA. ~Aldrea, still desperately trying to get caught up from her last weekend trip so as to be all ready to get far far behind as she goes on a weeklong one. From editor at texas.net Sat Aug 3 03:23:55 2002 From: editor at texas.net (Amanda Geist) Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2002 22:23:55 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] A new Lily Theory: The ancient magic witch References: Message-ID: <005a01c23a9d$343a2ee0$147763d1@texas.net> No: HPFGUIDX 42061 Grey Wolf said: > Arranging all these thoughts, I developed a new theory: Lily had been > studying the ancient magic, probably by order of Dumbledore himself, in > case she could find something that could counter Voldemorts rise to > power (after all, at that point, Voldemort was winning, and > Dumbledore's side was in dire straits). And she *had* found something: > the love shield spell, which could stop even the normally unstopable > AK, but which required a human sacrifice to make it work (and the > person to give his life had to *love* the recipient, too). Thanks to > her studies, Lily could command the ancient magic, and when she > discovered that she could not stop V from killing her baby, she used it > while sacrificing herself. This is very much along the lines of a theory of my husband's, that I posted on June 1, that slipped through the cracks and garnered no responses...see what you think, Wolf, it's very similar to yours, and I'd love to be able to tell Jan that an idea of his actually got noticed! and supported!---> (post reproduced below) My beloved, Jan, is a long ponderer and came to me today with a Harry Potter thought (as he calls them). He has braided several threads together and presented me with several novel takes on things, which I will now proceed to share. There has been general dissatisfaction with the idea that Lily's dying for Harry was what saved him from Voldemort. Plenty of people must have flung themselves in front of others in Voldemort's long career as a Bad Wizard; why should this one time be special or different? We are told the Potters knew Voldemort was after them. Jan suggests that the Potters did more than hide. He suggested that Dumbledore worked with Lily, who was very good at charms, far in advance to set a spell on Harry that would be activated in a worst-case scenario when there was no other way to protect him. A shield or protection that required Lily to do what she did, integrating her love into the rest of the spell and completing it. I mentioned the thread of Stoned!Harry and all the alchemical symbolism to him, and he said this fits, as Lily's love was transmuted into a protection. The achievement of the Stone is via transmutation, and the process of achieving it is intended not to get a Stone, but to transmute the alchemist himself to a higher state of being. It is a process of self-perfection, not a way to obtain gold or live forever, which is presumably why all the many would-be's who tried it for the latter goals all failed. But I digress. This thought of Jan's nicely reduced the aggravation factor of Lily's Sacrifice, as it added the extra edge I thought must be required. I mentioned to Jan that the (accurate) distinction had been made that Lily's love was not, after all, identified as what kept off Voldemort, but as what kept off *Quirrell.* Nor have I understood why Voldemort's spell *rebounded,* rather than just not working. Jan's theory also adds reason for Lily to refuse to move aside; in addition to mother love, she was willingly providing the key element to the last-line and strongest parts of Harry's protection. We already know Dumbledore has set up other parts (the ancient magic that protects him at the Dursleys, and probably more). Dumbledore is a very powerful wizard, and was very involved with the Potters, which is why we figured he helped Lily work this out. Okay. That was good. I was happy. But Jan continued. Flamel. Flamel was to set his affairs in order and then he would die. Ah, but here we are talking about the achiever of the Stone, the one who has achieved the higher state of being. Here is one who is also dying willingly for a noble cause. Has his love or purity of purpose, I wonder, been transmuted into any other type of protective spell? A very good thought by Jan. And now here comes Cindy with this ludicrous disloyalty idea about Snape. But the reason she gives--that Dumbledore has to die, and being betrayed is the only way--hmmm. Dumbledore has to die, eh? Yeah, I agree, he probably will. But if Jan is right, and there is a charm or spell that can transmute a willing and loving death into a powerful protection, I can see another way Dumbledore could exit. A very likely way. So, what do you all think? I love the way that man's mind works. --Amanda From pat_mahony at hotmail.com Sat Aug 3 03:53:37 2002 From: pat_mahony at hotmail.com (kangasboy) Date: Sat, 03 Aug 2002 03:53:37 -0000 Subject: Ancient Magic (was, A new Lily theory) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42062 I always interpreted the "ancient magic" alluded to in HP as referring to the most basic primeval forces from which all magic stems. Ancient magic could be connected to power of the Heir of Slytherin (and any other heirs out there), plus it could be responsible for magical abilities that cannot be learnt (eg Divination). I believe it to be "pure" magic, in that it is incorruptible; which is why Voldemort can't use it, and has been thwarted by it. Voldemort probably believes that he has links to the ancient magic, due to his being the heir of Slytherin and all, but his own evil prevents him from being able to comprehend it. Seeing as spells do not discriminate between users, it would seem these "structured" spells are simply offshoots from the source (ie, the ancient magic), and can be corrupted by the intent of the caster, due to the fact that they lie so far from the heart of "ancient" magic. Voldemort has mastered this lesser, although still powerful branch of magic, but is yet able It makes sense for ancient magic to be rooted in emotion; when young wizards display the unfocused magic before they get to Hogwarts, they occur at times of great emotion, be it anger (aunt Marge), fear (Neville's bouncing) or something else. That would qualify love, as arguably the most powerful human emotion, as having the greates magical effect. With this theory, if Lily's love is what is responsible for Harry's protection, it can't involve a ritual/charm/spell, because this would be corrupting the ancient magic she was invoking. This creates two possible reasons as to how Lily protected Harry: 1)Lily was, somehow, a particularly powerful magical being, and her death meant that Harry was protected while other victims of the AK weren't. 2) Lily's sacrifice, as a symbol of pure love, was enough to protect Harry. Harry being an innocent as well would've played in his favour. I like the idea that Lily sacrificed herself without any knowledge of what she was doing, as this would mean that her acts were completely free of any magical influence; that she sacrificed herself purely out of not only love, but also hope as well. The importance of hope has not been mentioned very often (as far as I know), however it seems that Voldemort's power was compounded byt the fact that people didn't know how to stop him. So many people diead and disappeared, and given that the AK is unblockable, any resistance must have been seen by many to have been futile. Combined with the lack of trust within the community, it is obvious that there was virtually no hope at all, except in Dumbeldore. Lily did not stop trying to protect Harry; in fact, she pleaded with a powerful wizard who killed without mercy, in the hope that she could somehow save her son. Maybe she was hoping that she was delaying Voldemort enough for help to arrive. Anyway, if she died based partly on her hope, this combined with the love woudl've provided a force which was directly opposed to Voldemort and his actions. This theory stemmed from Dumbledore's statement at the end of PS. His insistence that it was love, rather than magic, that saved and protected Harry, indicates that there are things more powerful than the magic that is used by wizards. My personal opinion is that Lily's sacrifice would be belittled if it is revealed that it was performed consciously as part of a spell; it lessens the purity of her actions. It seems that Dumbledore is the only person who is fully aware of the power of the "ancient magic", with its roots in human emotions. My prediction is that Voldemort will be defeated by an aspect of this magic, after he has grown more aware of its power and importance. Sorry, that was longer than intended, Roo From TaliaDawn3 at aol.com Sat Aug 3 04:26:05 2002 From: TaliaDawn3 at aol.com (TaliaDawn3 at aol.com) Date: Sat, 3 Aug 2002 00:26:05 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Lily's death or her love? (was Re: A new Lily Theory: The... Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42063 In a message dated 8/2/02 10:18:40 PM Eastern Daylight Time, kkearney at students.miami.edu writes: > Well, that's my theory. Lily's death wasn't the cause of Harry > survival. Instead, she chose to protect Harry rather than save > herself. Her love for him (and he ability with ancient magic) saved > him. If what you propose is true, then that gets me thinking...let's pretend for a moment we all believe in the Heir of Gryffindor thing (just humor me for a minute). Lily knows that Harry has to survive and grow up so he can defeat Voldemort because he is the only one who *can*, since Voldemort is the Heir of Slytherin and Harry is the Heir of Gryffindor (remember, everyone's humoring me!). Lily, realizing that there is no escape, does the ancient spell, saves Harry, and thus ensures the survival of the forces of good. If that's the plausible scenario, then why hasn't anyone ever told him? Dumbledore for example. He is portrayted as being rather omnipotent and I'm sure he would have known about Harry being the only one able to defeat Voldemort. Unless it's one of those things that he must learn about in time.... Of course, this is all highly unlikely - but *I* would like it if somehow Harry were the *true* Heir of Slytherin (don't ask me how, if JKR wanted to do it, she could!) because that would be counterintuitive for us. Harry's good, Slytherin was evil. And maybe only Heirs of Slytherin can defeat each other ... I like my first idea better I think. ~*~*~Talia Dawn~*~* (Who apologizes for using big/rarely used words....she's doing her AP English work and it's making her says odd things.) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From chetah27 at hotmail.com Sat Aug 3 04:45:47 2002 From: chetah27 at hotmail.com (aldrea279) Date: Sat, 03 Aug 2002 04:45:47 -0000 Subject: Sytherin's Bad Rap In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42064 Talia Dawn: >>The fact that Dumbledore always rewards the Trio for breaking the rules shows that he has a loyalty to Gryffindor.>> I don't know about this statement. Dumbledore doesn't really reward them *because* they broke the rules. He rewards them for their bravery, cleverness, and use of strategy Dumbledore really is quite fair, IMO. Snape(who is Slytherin, if you've forgotten =P) is always the first to think the worst of the Trio(or any other Gryffindor, for that matter). But Dumbledore remains neutral and listens to their side before making a decision. And since we see things through Harry, we don't know if maybe a Slytherin has been brought in before Dumbledore on serious charges, been given the benefit of the doubt and listened to, then not punished because Dumbledore could find no wrong in what they did after listening to their story. We just don't know. Talia Dawn: >>One would think, in times like these, that Dumbledore would try to show the Slytherins that he doesn't *hate* them, which is what I think the Slytherins think.>> If by "in times like these" you mean Voldemort's return, then that didn't actually happen til the end of GoF. And what did Dumbledore do at the end of GoF? He said that anyone and everyone sitting in that hall would be welcomed back at Hogwarts if they needed it. And that does indeed include Slytherins. Talia Dawn: >>I think the Slytherins are mean because they have to be. They have to defend themselves some way.>> Hmm...well, Draco and Co. were mean *before* they even got sorted into Slytherin and dealt with this "prejudice". Which just makes *them* slimy gits, not all of Slytherin; but still, you get my point. Talia Dawn: >>They hate them just because they're Slytherin.>> Okay, I was just flipping around the beginning of PS/SS. Harry arrives at Hogwarts and certainly does *not* carry the dislike for Slytherin he developes in later books. He just doesn't think they're the house for him, and that has to be majorly reinforced with his first Potions class. Look at that! Talk about prejudice, Snape embarasses Harry infront of the entire class, *just* because Harry is the "famous" Harry Potter. And he even gets on to Harry for *not* helping Neville and takes a point away during that first class...kind of contrasts sharply with the way he got mad at Hermione for helping Neville with that potion in one of the later books(I can't recall which one, exactly, at the moment), doesn't it? I don't think Harry hates Draco *just* because he's Slytherin. He hates Draco because Draco deserves to be hated by Harry, what with the way he's treated him and all. As do Crabbe and Goyle, but not all Slytherins. Trisana Granger: >>Okay, so Draco's an idiot. That doesn't mean that *all* Slytherins are, does it?>> No, it doesn't. And I think everyone so far has been careful in wording themselves when describing Slytherins. Saying things like "from the Slytherins we've seen *so far*, it doesn't seem like any of them have a single redeemable quality". But that's only thus far. We could see a nice Slytherin, it just hasn't happened yet. I mean, not *all* of them didn't stand up and raise their glass to Harry. Which means that they're not *all* slimy gits. Trisana Granger: >>Also, Draco does have a reason to not like Harry - he tried to make friends with Harry at first, but Harry rejected him.>> And that's a *bad* thing? When Draco "tried to make friends" with Harry, he did so by insulting the first real friend Harry had ever had. And, when looking at the text and thinking about Draco's character as we know it(thus far), the *only* reason he went to see Harry was because everyon was "saying all down the train that Harry Potter's in this compartment". He went to go make nice with the person everyone was talking about. Real friend there, oh yeah. ~Aldrea, who would *love* to see a good Slytherin. From alexpie at aol.com Sat Aug 3 05:06:26 2002 From: alexpie at aol.com (alexpie at aol.com) Date: Sat, 3 Aug 2002 01:06:26 EDT Subject: Voldemort on when someone dies to protect their family Message-ID: <132.11ca0b5f.2a7cbed2@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 42065 In a message dated 8/2/02 10:23:47 PM Eastern Daylight Time, HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com writes: > In reading various posts on Harry's parents' deaths and Voldemort's > graveyard comments on them, I wonder why Voldemort calls > James 'courageous' for standing up to him while he calls > Lily 'foolish' or 'silly' or crazy. What is Voldemort's problem-- is > he sexist? Or is he so embarrassed that Lily got the better of him? No, not sexist, nor embarrassed. Lily is a Potter by marriage only, so she needn't have died, except for her understandable, maternal, loving desire to save Harry. Harry is a Potter by descent (unlike Liily) and it is very clearly stated in PoA that Voldemort was out to kill "the last of the Potters." I won't quote Grey Wolf, but you all know what I mean... Ravenclaw Ba, who hopes in won't rain in NJ this weekend, as she hopes to frolic in a lake [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From chetah27 at hotmail.com Sat Aug 3 05:54:29 2002 From: chetah27 at hotmail.com (aldrea279) Date: Sat, 03 Aug 2002 05:54:29 -0000 Subject: Lupin the Brave, Lupin in the Shrieking Shack (WASRe:Lupin the brave, Sirius... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42066 Pippin, snipping a bit of cannon to talk about Sirius: >>"Nobody but trained Hit Wizards from the Magical Law Enforcement Squad would have stood a chance against Black once he was cornered." PoA ch. 10.>> Now, unless my memory fails me(and it has on many occasions), Fudge tells this to that curvy Madame Rosmerta in the Three Broomsticks. And I don't buy *all* of what was told there. Peter Pettigrew got a Hero's Death, remember, and so it builds up his "noble" character to go on about how *brave* he was to face that armed and dangerous Sirius Black all by himself when it would have taken a whole squad to even stand a chance against Black. Pippin: >>Now, I don't think Lupin's an idiot. And he's an expert on Dark Magic, so he's not incompetent either. Either the situation was terrifying and he knew he should get help--or it wasn't terrifying, and no bravery was required.>> I don't think you can cut it all as nice and clean and as simple as that. I agree with the general statement that's been floating around: Lupin was watching the Map, he saw the Trio enter the Hagrid's hut, and saw them leave with Peter Pettigrew. He's in - shock-. He even says something along those lines: "I couldn't believe my eyes"..."I thought the map must be malfunctioning. How could he be with you?" Then, yet another devestating shock, there's that murderer Sirius Black! And suddenly, he sees the little Sirius dot collide with...what, Ron and Peter? And drag them down into the Womping Willow? Well what in the world is going on there, Sirius is supposed to be after Harry! I'd say that by this time Lupin is wondering what in the heck is going on and rushes to the Shrieking Shack. You can measure the bravery of that issue anyways you want, as I see it as an opinion matter. Pippin: >>But even Harry had the sense to realize that he couldn't face Snape alone at the end of PS/SS and sent Hermione to owl Dumbledore.>> Or maybe it was the chance to finally bust Snape the way Snape was busting Harry so much? *g* Pippin: >>But it didn't have to tell us that it would be foolish for a wizard to try to capture Black on his own, or that Lupin didn't feel compelled to intervene *until he saw Pettigrew. *>> Actually, as stated above, Lupin didn't rush out of office until he saw Black. Hmm...well, -Black- is the one that would be putting Harry's life in danger, correct? You know, maybe that bravery issue is a little more important than I thought.. =P Pippin: >>It didn't make Lupin seem so strangely unconcerned about the Trio's welfare. It's Sirius who cautions Ron about his leg, and chides the Trio for attacking Snape.>> And it's Lupin who starts towards Ron, "looking concerned" when Ron tries to painfully stand up. And Sirius isn't too concerned about Ron when he lunges after Peter and -lands- on Ron's -broken- leg. And it's not as though Lupin had much of a chance to say anything when the Trio Expelliarmus'd Snape, what with being tied and gagged on the floor. Pippin: >>The first thing he does is confiscate the Trio's wands; an odd way of trying to protect them, it seems to me.>> Actually, not really, considering what was going on. Lupin probably planned to walk in, wand out, shouting Expelliarmus to stop any and all magic so as to get some answers. Pippin: >>Then he yells, "NO!" in All Caps, mind you, and flings himself bodily on Sirius, further injuring Ron. And when Ron tries to leave, it's Lupin who stops him, at wand point.>> Actually, it's Sirius that lands on Ron and does him bodily harm. Lupin drags Sirius away from Ron. I don't find it suspicious that Lupin wants to keep Peter alive. Lupin wants some *answers* as to what is going. He grew up with both of them, one he thought was a murderer and the other he thought was dead. Now they're both back and he doesn't know what the heck is going on. I should say he'd definately want to talk to both of them, alive, and figure out what's going on before anyone killed anyone. ~Aldrea, replying to this rather late...but still replying all the same. =P From katzefan at yahoo.com Sat Aug 3 06:37:06 2002 From: katzefan at yahoo.com (katzefan) Date: Sat, 03 Aug 2002 06:37:06 -0000 Subject: Thank you Lilac; Lupin the Brave; Who's Older; Pettigrew's debt Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42067 Lilac: Us Canucks in the (currently) Great Sweltering North would like to thank you for that parody. It's GREAT! ************* From: "lupinesque" Date:? Tue?Jul?30,?2002? 12:06 pm Subject:? Lupin the brave, Lupin the mentor *large snip* >It is my considered opinion that Lupin is indeed Harry's Mentor, >one might even say Harry's Anti-De- Mentor or even, in the >butterbeer- sharing scene, Harry's Fur Mentor. Aaaaarrrgghh!!! (That ... was ... priceless!) *larger snip* >I don't know who's going to die, but if we're going by the >intensity of their relationship with Harry, Lupin has to be up >there with Dumbledore (and Sirius and Hagrid). >Amy Z Oh, dear, you do make an excellent case there, but I really, really *really* hope you're wrong.... ******************** From:? "greg_a126" Date:? Wed?Jul?31,?2002? 2:19 pm Subject:? Lily & Petunia, who's older? >Based on the fan fiction out there, it seems to me that a great >majority of people think that Petunia is the oldest. I'm >wondering if there's any evidence from canon about that. B/c if >not, then I think it's much more likely that Lily is a few years >older. Think about it. Lily gets her letter when she's 11. The >whole family goes off to Diagon Alley, and everyone, including >Petunia, falls in love with the magical world. For the next two or >3 years until Petunia turned 11, all her parents talked about >was the day that she'd get her own letter. Then, the whole >summer of her 11th year goes by & no letter for Petunia. Rather >than admit that the magical world rejected her, she decides to >reject the magical world by hating all things magical, including >her nephew who even at a young age showed he had the gift >she never did. I think that scenario makes more sense than the >jealous older sister bit, but maybe that's just me. >Thoughts? >Greg From:? "frankielee242" Date:? Wed?Jul?31,?2002? 5:22 pm Subject:? Re: Lily & Petunia, who's older? <*large snip*> >All in all, Petunia's behavior seems consistent with a jealous >and neglected older sister (whether or not she was actually >overlooked is beside the point, she sure feels that way-- think of >her tirade at the beginning of SS/PS. Can you say *baggage*?). *snip* >Strikes me that everything was fine in Petunia's world until the >day little Lily came home from the hospital... and stole the >show. >Frankie I see the lexicon suggests Petunia *is* older, which was definitely my impression (although Greg makes some good points, including Petunia's anticipation of her own invitation to Hogwarts, cruelly dashed - on her birthday, no less). I would have guessed they were much less than 10 years apart, though, because my first thought was that such intense jealousy is usually more prevalent in siblings born closely together. A 14- year-old is less likely to be jealous than, say, a four-year-old that a two-year-old sister is getting more attention. BUT this is not exactly a normal case. Imagine the horrible shock of the elder sister when the younger gets a letter which she did not, and which she now realizes never will arrive ... particularly if said younger sister has always been the prettier one (or the one with the more sparkling personality), the one who drew friends like a magnet, and then on top of it all the one who has the strange talent -- and who used it who-knew-how-many-times to 'get' - or get back at - her older sister? (Remember Harry turning his teacher's wig blue?) As an infant, I would imagine Lily's talent wasn't really under any control (a la the little girl in Stephen King's Firestarter - can't recall her name). She probably blasted Petunia more than a few times strictly by accident, and any attempt by Petunia to get even would have been quickly squashed by parental authority ("You're older than she is!") And as Lily got older, she would have become more conscious of her abilities, and more able to direct them deliberately (although still, often, with unforeseen results, I would imagine, since her control would still have been very imperfect). But I can see little Lily realizing pretty smartly that, somehow, she can really wreak retribution (and not a little humiliation) on Petunia, with an increasingly angry and bitter Petunia coming to understand that she will pretty much always come off the loser in any scuffle between herself and her younger sister - there will never be an 'even-steven'. *************** From:? "dembeldei" Date:? Wed?Jul?31,?2002? 10:58 pm Subject:? Re: Pettigrew's debt to Harry >Monica said: "I was wondering if anyone else has wondered >>about how Pettigrew will pay Harry back for Harry not letting >>Sirius and Lupin kill him. *snip* >I've always surmised that it might be key that Voldemort was >resurrected from the combination of Harry's blood and Peter's >flesh, not realizing that Peter was in debt to Harry! >I am interested in seeing how this plays out (will V. or his magic >self combust when it hits this paradox, etc.?) >Dembeldei There was some discussion, quite some time ago, about the paragraph in GoF in which Harry tells Dumbledore about Voldemort's using his blood in the resurrection ceremony. Harry says, 'He said the protection my - mother left in me - he'd have it, too. And he was right - he could touch me without hurting himself, he touched my face.' For a fleeting instant, Harry thought he saw a gleam of something like triumph in Dumbledore's eyes." That 'gleam' was interpreted by some as triumph, all right, because Dumbeldore realizes Voldemort has made himself *more* vulnerable because of his use of Harry's blood (I don't recall the explanation as to why this would be). But I like Dembeldei's theory that it may be the combination of Harry's blood *and* Peter's flesh that does the trick, although it doesn't really sound like 'payback' on Peter's part unless he's aware that this could cause trouble for Voldie down the road and opts not to say anything (Not that Voldemort sounds like the type to entertain discussion and debate anyway. And I really wouldn't mind seeing him self-combust....) Katzefan From jenw74 at hotmail.com Sat Aug 3 01:59:04 2002 From: jenw74 at hotmail.com (jenw74 at hotmail.com) Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2002 20:59:04 -0500 Subject: "Re: Happy Birthday to Harry" Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42068 Polly said.... > Happy Birthday to Harry and JK Rowling!!! > By the way, how old would he be this year, since book 5 is so late? > Many Happy Returns, > Polly Their birthday was actually 2 days ago, July 31st. Harry would be 22 on this birthday. That if he was born in 1980 as the timelines on the HP Lexicon suggest. Jennifer [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From purple_801999 at yahoo.com Sat Aug 3 03:09:07 2002 From: purple_801999 at yahoo.com (purple_801999) Date: Sat, 03 Aug 2002 03:09:07 -0000 Subject: Harry's Putative Death In-Reply-To: <20020802203429.6021.qmail@web40311.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42069 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Lilac wrote: > > Ravenclaw Ba said: > << familiar with Christian theology knows what's going to happen to Harry. > If anyone can find the source, I'd be grateful.>>> > > > Hmmmm....I would be interested to read that interview as well. Does this imply that Harry is a Christ figure, who will sacrifice himself and die to save all wizard and muggle-kind, but then rises again? I think I could live with that, if he does "have" to die. Does this mean a betrayal is in the future? Who would his Judas be? Does this mean Fudge will order his demise because of political pressure from Lucias Malfoy or the like, and then wash his hands of the whole thing, like Pilate? I never thought of the HP series in these terms before because JKR hasn't had blatant Christian symbolism (ala CS Lewis "Narnia" series) in the series. Very interesting..... > > Lilac For some reason this post put me in mind of the movie "Last Temptation of Christ" and made me wonder if perhaps Harry somehow wouldn't be tempted by Voldemort into accepting a "normal life" instead of fufilling his destiny to destroy him. But I don't think that exactly falls under Christian theology and I know Rowling seems to have a distain for using fate as her characters motivation. It would make an interesting fan fiction though.;) -Olivia Grey From aaoconnor2002 at yahoo.com Sat Aug 3 05:09:17 2002 From: aaoconnor2002 at yahoo.com (aaoconnor2002) Date: Sat, 03 Aug 2002 05:09:17 -0000 Subject: Harry saved from AK by his mother In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42070 Hello everyone. I am new to these lists and have been lurking for a couple of weeks too intimidated to step in until now. Forgive me if I repeat thoughts that have already been covered. I've tried to search the archive but it is overwhelming to say the least. > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "eriktz" wrote: > > I have heard many people say that Harry was saved by his mother's > > sacrifice to save him. I have been very curious where people are > > getting that from. I have always understood that Dumbldore said that > > the reason that Quirrel couldn't touch Harry was because of his > > mother's sacrifice, not that he was protcted from AK because of his > > sacrifice. Could someone give me a reference if i am wrong about > > that? If you can't maybe we have no idea why Harry was able to > > deflect the Voldemort's AK! > > > > > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "grey_wolf_c" wrote: > Goblet of Fire, Chapter 33 "The Deatheaters" (Sp. Edition, liberal > translation): > > "[Harry's] mother died to save him and, without knowing, she was a > shield for him that I had not thought of... I couldn't touch him. [...] > His mother left in him the traces of her sacrifice... this is ancient > magic; I should've remembered it [...] My curse was desviated by the > mad sacrifice of a woman and rebounded against me" > I have always felt that there was more to Harry's survival than a simple case of "mother's sacrifice". If that was all it took to protect a loved one then certainly Harry's case would not be as unique as it apparently is. In the well documented history of the Wizarding World there would have to have been at least a few other examples of people protected by the ultimate sacrifice of someone else, be it parent, spouse, etc. I'm not saying that Lily's sacrifice didn't contribute to Harry's survival but I don't believe it was the only factor. If we then think about what the other contributing factor(s) may be, I see two possibilities: 1) There is something about Harry that we don't have knowledge of yet that gave him the personal power to protect himself. Many threads have discussed the theory that Harry may be the heir of Gryffindor. The only thing we know for certain at this point is that there is something about Harry that made Voldemort feel threatened, so threatened that he felt he had to kill a one year old baby. Personally, while I believe that Harry is the lucky recipient of a great set of genes, I agree with Dumbledore's comment that what we become is more important than what we are born. This leads to my second possibility, which is the one I prefer to believe. 2) There was someone else involved in protecting Harry that night. Dumbledore may be the only wizard that Voldemort actively fears but that doesn't mean there aren't others that are powerful enough to be a problem to him, especially if they catch him unawares. My choice would be Snape. He knew more curses at the age of 11 than most of the 7th year students did. How much of a stretch would it be to think he had some exposure to the "ancient magic" also? We know that he was spying for Dumbledore and had a life-debt that he owed to James. We know that someone warned the Potters that their lives were in danger. We know that Snape did something that convinced Dumbledore beyond a doubt of Snape's trustworthiness. What if that something was saving Harry and almost destroying Voldemort in the process? Now for my theory (Woo-Hoo, here it is everybody back now!) Consider this scenario. Snape is spying for Dumbledore and gets word that the Potters are targets. Snape reports this fact and the Potters go into hiding. Then Snape gets word that the secret is out and Voldemort is on his way to Godric's Hollow. Snape is in a quandary. He has the life-debt obligation to worry about but also his cover as a spy. Life-debt obligation wins out and he goes to save the Potters but arrives too late to save James and Lily. In fact he arrives just in time to work some ancient magic that, in combination with Lily's sacrifice, is enough to save Harry and reflect the curse on Voldemort. The house is destroyed but is Voldemort? Nobody knows at that moment and Snape doesn't dare stick around in case the Death-Eaters show up trying to find their master. He returns to Dumbledore to find out that Hagrid has been sent to the Potters and, miracle of miracles, has pulled baby Harry from the wreckage alive. Now what to do? (This is where my thoughts turn to Dumbledore as a quasi-manipulator) Dumbledore doesn't know for certain where Voldemort is or what his condition is. This would be the first piece of information that needs to be ascertained. The people most likely to know are the Death-Eaters so off goes Snape gathering information again. Of course no one can know of Snape's participation in the events at Godric's Hollow so baby Harry, the innocent bystander, becomes UrbanLegend Harry, the Boy Who Lived. Dumbledore turns Harry over to the Dursley's to protect him emotionally from the trauma of growing up famous and physically from any revenge by Voldemort or the Death-Eaters. This distancing from the Wizarding World only reinforces the legend as time goes by. By the time Dumbledore has a grip on Voldemorts whereabouts and the rest of the Death-Eaters have been arrested or run back to the side of the good screaming "Imperious" no one would believe Snape if the truth were told. Urban legends are like that. Dumbledore isn't going to let the kneazle out of the bag because he knows Voldemort isn't completely gone and it always pays to have a Snape up your sleeve. So what do we have by the time Harry enters Hogwarts? We have BitterSnape who was and still is an ambitious man with dreams of the Order of Merlin dancing in his head, who is responsible for defeating the greatest dark wizard of the century, and can't even take credit for it. We have Dumbledore who trusts Snape implicitly because, when it really mattered, Snape chose the side of good and, even though recognition has been what he has always wanted, has lived without the recognition he deserves for all these years. Maybe not happily, all the references to the "famous Harry Potter" show that, but he has lived with it. Perhaps most importantly, we have a villain who has spent 10 years obsessing about the boy who beat him. We see this in SS/PS, why would Quirrelmort take the risk of exposing himself by trying to kill Harry at the Quidditch game? Why, at the end when Harry had the stone in his pocket, did Quirrelmort attack him physically and not just "Accio" the stone from him? The reason is one of the oldest motivating forces in literature, simple revenge. We see the same thing in GoF. Voldemort could use any enemies' blood but, no, it has to be Harry's. Granted Voldemort has a couple of other thoughts, namely he believes he will get extra protection from Harry's blood and that he will prove to the Death-Eaters that Harry is beatable but it probably would have been better strategically to regain his body quietly and get his forces in order. Voldemort can't see the forest for the trees anymore and I am sure Dumbledore is counting on this. A lot of mention has been made of the triumphant gleam in Dumbledore's eyes that is mentioned near the end of GoF ""He said my blood would make him stronger than if he'd used someone else's," Harry told Dumbledore. "He said the protection my - my mother left in me - he'd have it too. And he was right - he could touch me without hurting himself, he touched my face." For a fleeting instant, Harry thought he saw a gleam of something like triumph in Dumbledore's eyes." (GoF, US paperback edition page 696) What if Dumbledore's gleam is not because of Voldemort's actions that Harry is relating but because of Voldemort's words? What if the important thing is that Voldemort still believe's Lily's sacrifice was THE reason Harry survived? I would have a gleam of triumph too if I had kept my world's greatest enemy obsessing over a red herring (or in this case a red Harry?) for thirteen years. It would also mean that Snape's cover might hold up. It might not be easy for him to get back in the good graces but at least it COULD be possible. What do you folks think? Audrey (who has donned her blindfold and is nervously awaiting, "Ready, Aim, Fire"!) From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Sat Aug 3 11:05:59 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Sat, 03 Aug 2002 11:05:59 -0000 Subject: The Ancient Magic Witch theory, the fight back In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42071 Richelle wrote: > As for Lily, she's the one who had time to do something. While > Voldemort was busy telling her to stand aside. But then, what should > she do? If she AK's him, then she's no better than he is. Since it > is the unforgivable curse. This is not exactly true: using the AK does not make you into a Lord Voldemort. The fact that it is unforgivable is just a legal definition, something decreed by law AND an exception was, nonetheless, made for aurors, who could use any and all of the unforgivables in the search for deatheaters at that time. So, if the Potters (Lily and James) were Aurors (and I don't think we can discount that), they could've used the AK. Even if they weren't, I don't think the hardest trial at that time would've condemned Lily to prison *for destroying Lord Voldemort*. Still Richelle: > So if she did indeed know this ancient > magic that just maybe Harry could be spared if she sacrificed herself > than she did do something. But if she didn't know, I guess she was > willing to sacrifice herself to allow her baby a few more seconds of > life. Which would be the greatest sacrifice of all if she allowed > herself to die not truly believing it would save him. Perhaps that is > the ancient magic? A love so truly unselfish that you would die to > allow another to live only seconds longer? > > Richelle I don't see things that way, although I know several people have expressed that the greatest sacrifice is the one that gives a baby a few more seconds of life. I don't see how that's courageous, I just find it useless (please don't be offended, I do respect your belief, even if I don't understand it). From *my point of view*, sacrificing yourself for the sake of a few seconds, in fact, serves no purpose: a baby cannot survive anyway, especially if your sacrifice does not stop the danger, as in this case. I much prefer to believe that the ancient magic requires a sacrifice made from love: "Man knows no greater love than a mother cat giving her life for her kittens" the saying goes, but if the kittens inmediately die, the sacrifice is moot. Only by having Lily lay her life down for the sake of completing a spell that will give her little boy a life, do I find her sacrifice meaningful. At any rate, this point is only a matter of point of view, so if anyone wants to flame me for expressing my opinion, please do so privately, and bear in mind that I probably won't answer. Corinth modified: > Hmm, I like the idea that Lily was studying ancient spells as a last > resort to defeating Voldemort. However, I have a different idea as > to the type of spell this might be. > > She suddenly remembered a spell she had come > across that repelled the Avada Kedavra curse. A complicated spell, > which would take a while to perform. She wouldn't have time to > perform this spell and save herself as well. So she is forced to > make a choice: 1) take Harry and run while James delays Voldemort, > thus saving herself and her son, but possibly (probably, considering > Voldemort's power at the time) only delaying an eventual successful > attack on Harry; or 2) perform the ancient spell, thus saving Harry, > but leaving her with no time to escape. Lily chooses the latter. > She begins the spell. Voldemort enters, and tells her to stand > aside. Lily, after all, does not seem to be fighting him, and as his > target is so near he sees no reason to kill her. Until he realizes > the spell she is attempting. He then kills her, without realizing > that he is too late. The rest is history. > > In this instance, Lily's death isn't actually necessary for the > ancient magic to work. Luckily for my theory, the books never > actually state that Lily's death saved Harry that night. > > To be fair, there is one quote that may hurt my theory. In GoF, > p.658, Voldemort says "...there is no Dumbledore to help him, and no > mother to die for him...." before dueling with Harry. But then, > Vodemort was impatient, and saying, "no mother to attempt to perform > an ancient spell, which would have prevented me from killing the boy > whom I had hunted for so long, and causing to to waste precious time > in killing her, which turned out to be unnecessary anyway since she > had already successfully protected her child" would have been quite a > mouthful. :) > > Well, that's my theory. Lily's death wasn't the cause of Harry > survival. Instead, she chose to protect Harry rather than save > herself. Her love for him (and he ability with ancient magic) saved > him. > > -Corinth To be fair, Corinth, you should think of NOT including counter arguments in your theories, especially if they're canon based, since it makes them easier to attack: you've provided the two main extracts I had thought of, and I didn't even have to translate them. Thanks, at any rate. As you point out, at least three people point out that it was Lily's death that allowed the love shield to exist, although the nature of the shield IS love. Why don't I believe your theory is correct? Well, for one thing, I don't buy that the protection spell is just "long". If there was a spell that protected wizards and witches from AK, they would ALL be using it, and it would not be ancient magic, but common one. The way I see it, for a spell to be "ancient" it must have been used in the past, but for some reason or another, wizards and witches stopped using it. In the particular case of the love-shield, a spell cost of a human sacrifice would be a reason to stop using it: after all, you wouldn't want a loved one to give your life for you just in case someone tried to AK you: a life would have been lost anyway, so you gain nothing (and normally, you loose a lot, since for some reason humans prefer to die than to see a loved one die). That's the main reason I introduced Lily's sacrifice as a part of the incantation; else, everyone would be using it, it would not have been forgotten. Or, if you think as kangasboy (aka pat mahony; aka roo) that "ancient magic" means "elemental magic", if the spell was as easy as a three-minute incantation (or even a week incantation, or whatever), Voldemort would've had it more present, and it would not have slipped his mind. Whilst, if it does require such an increadible high "activation cost", Voldemort would've filed it away as "impractical" when he saw it while looking for inmortality methods, not only for him (since it would be hard to find someone who loved him when his objective was to be feared), but also for Dumbledore's side (since he doesn't understand love, he wouldn't think anyone would give his life for another out of love). Hope that helps, Grey Wolf, who really doesn't want to offend anyone's belief about sacrifice: please bear in mind that what's expressed here is his point of view. From lupinesque at yahoo.com Sat Aug 3 11:39:42 2002 From: lupinesque at yahoo.com (Amy Z) Date: Sat, 3 Aug 2002 04:39:42 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Lupin the Brave, Sirius the Terrorist again In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020803113942.37258.qmail@web20304.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 42072 > Pippin, snipping a bit of cannon to talk about > Sirius: > >>"Nobody but trained Hit Wizards from the Magical > Law > Enforcement Squad would have stood a chance against > Black > once he was cornered." PoA ch. 10.>> Aldrea wrote: > Now, unless my memory fails me(and it has on many > occasions), Fudge > tells this to that curvy Madame Rosmerta in the > Three Broomsticks. > And I don't buy *all* of what was told there. Peter > Pettigrew got a > Hero's Death, remember, and so it builds up his > "noble" character to > go on about how *brave* he was to face that armed > and dangerous > Sirius Black all by himself when it would have taken > a whole squad to > even stand a chance against Black. Yeah, I think the basic idea Pippin says is true--that people are *very* scared of Black and think he must have very advanced powers--but I took Fudge's interpretation with a grain of salt. Fudge is a bureaucrat down to his boots. Naturally when someone says "I'd have killed him with my bare hands," he goes into Officialdom mode and stiffly informs him that it would take "our experts" to do the job. He's playing up his own role as well as Peter's. Aldrea wrote: > And it's Lupin who starts towards Ron, "looking > concerned" when Ron > tries to painfully stand up. And Sirius isn't too > concerned about > Ron when he lunges after Peter and -lands- on Ron's > -broken- leg. > And it's not as though Lupin had much of a chance to > say anything > when the Trio Expelliarmus'd Snape, what with being > tied and gagged > on the floor. > > Pippin: > >>The first thing he does is confiscate the Trio's > wands; an odd way of trying to protect them, it > seems to me.>> Aldrea wrote: > Actually, not really, considering what was going on. > Lupin probably > planned to walk in, wand out, shouting Expelliarmus > to stop any and > all magic so as to get some answers. Makes sense to me; in a hostage situation you don't want *anyone* to have a gun. It's really, really hard to reason with someone who's holding a wand and threatening to use it. He's de-escalating the situation, as someone else said (sorry!). He can always give the wands back to whomever he decides can be trusted (which is what he does--because again, he knows Harry won't be able to trust him as long as he [Lupin] has a wand out). Re: Pippin's point a few days ago that the WW is acting as if Sirius is a danger to the general public: well, yes. But that's the official story. Anyone *could* be a target, and of course the MOM is going to put out a general warning, and of course the general public is going to be more scared than necessary. (I remember when the guy who killed Gianni Versace was on the loose, people in my area--2000 miles from the scene of the crime--and dozens of others around the country reported "sightings" of him. In a manhunt, people keep their kids indoors even though the chances of any one kid being kidnapped are a million to one.) But I think that people who are paying close attention and who know what's happened at Hogwarts, like Dumbledore and Lupin, will have noticed that Sirius is very singleminded. He was *in a boys' dorm in the middle of the night while everyone was asleep* and didn't take hostages, didn't hurt anyone, didn't blow anything up--if his aim is general mayhem, why not? And why hasn't there been anything amiss in Hogsmeade, even though he's known to be in the area? He's acting like a murderer, not a terrorist, and even Fudge, for all the general warnings, knows what his aim is: to kill Harry. I can't even remember why we're splitting hairs about this. Oh yeah, Lupin's strategy. Well, I agree with everyone who says he hasn't got much of one; he's flying by the seat of his pants. But the mano-a-mano is a lot less stupid if he thinks he's preventing a murder rather than Blocking a Terrorist Plot. What he needs to do is get to Harry, and he does that as fast as possible, mind racing about where the alive Peter fits into this as he runs. Amy __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better http://health.yahoo.com From sparky60 at bigpond.com Sat Aug 3 11:54:07 2002 From: sparky60 at bigpond.com (Peter and Denise Clements) Date: Sat, 3 Aug 2002 21:54:07 +1000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Harry saved from AK by his mother References: Message-ID: <005601c23ae4$79b11c80$0100a8c0@teddi> No: HPFGUIDX 42073 Audrey wrote: > Hello everyone. I am new to these lists and have been lurking for a > couple of weeks too intimidated to step in until now. Forgive me if > I repeat thoughts that have already been covered. I've tried to > search the archive but it is overwhelming to say the least. Now me: I agree re the archives. Loved your theory up to and including this bit > A lot of mention has been made of the triumphant gleam in > Dumbledore's eyes that is mentioned near the end of GoF > > What if Dumbledore's gleam is not because of Voldemort's actions that > Harry is relating but because of Voldemort's words? What if the > important thing is that Voldemort still believe's Lily's sacrifice > was THE reason Harry survived? I would have a gleam of triumph too > if I had kept my world's greatest enemy obsessing over a red herring > (or in this case a red Harry?) for thirteen years. It would also > mean that Snape's cover might hold up. It might not be easy for him > to get back in the good graces but at least it COULD be possible. > Now me again I always thought that thie gleam was just rivalry. Even rivals will acknowledge brilliance. Imagine Dumbledore and Voldemort playing chess, Voldie makes a fantastic unexpected move and Dumbledore glances across the table with a look that could possibly be admiration. I know I haven't explained myself well but you'll all work it out. You can take the blindfold off now Audrey, well thought out theory .. I like it :0) Denise From ksnidget at aol.com Sat Aug 3 12:35:19 2002 From: ksnidget at aol.com (ksnidget at aol.com) Date: Sat, 3 Aug 2002 08:35:19 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Snapes Sudden Move (was Re:Snape and the Malfoys) Message-ID: <48.f520dda.2a7d2807@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 42074 I've been thinking about the speculations of why Snape makes a sudden movement when Lucius is named. Now Lucius is the first of the Death Eaters named, and we know from Karkaroff's testimony that for the most part the who all else was a DE was kept secret from other DE's. What if he would have jumped no matter whose name came up first. I wonder if Voldemort making open declarations of names of DE's when they are all gathered together is a new thing. Something he hasn't done in the past. Something that could complicate the whole Snape as a spy thing. We do not know how many of the DE's know he was a DE. But what he has been doing since the fall is pretty widely known. He may also have been concerned that Voldemort named him because he didn't show up. One thing to worm your way back in with your fellow DE's when they do not know you were not there and are not likely to know you have been missing meetings. The spying may not have to do with going back to Voldemort directly, but getting himself back in close with other DE's who might assume he's been attending meetings. Death Eater's Anonymous meetings are different from your attendance or lack there of will be publicly announced meetings. He may also be concerned that he was named specifically as someone who should have showed, but didn't, and now he has a house full of sweet angelic kids that all know he was a traitor to the cause they and their parents believe in. It's enough to make you drink from your own personal hip flask. Who knows what the Future Death Eaters of the UK would slip in his drinks if they knew he had been working hard to bring about Voldemort's downfall. KSnidget. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Sat Aug 3 13:17:53 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Sat, 03 Aug 2002 13:17:53 -0000 Subject: James Potter/the Gleam/wizzard boxing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42075 On James potter --------------- Tara wrote: > I'm not the best at begining posts, so please, excuse that fact! I've > been reading all your posts, the more recents ones about Harry > defeating the AK, and Lily using ancient magic. All of that makes > sense, yet I'm wondering more why Voldemort was after James. He was > intending to kill James as well as Harry, right? What do we know > about James' family tree, his history. I don't think we know > anything, but maybe we could assume that he is an heir of some sort, > something passed from father to son? I'm just talking here, but I'm > curious as to your input. Everyone seems so focused on Lily. > Voldemort gave her the chance to live, so why do we assume she should > have any special "powers"? I do believe that she must have had > some other ancestory influence on her *wizarding skills*, however. I > just don't know how it all fits in together. Very much looking > forward to your thoughts. > > Tara There are two broad views in this matter, basically conflicting. Some people believe that Voldemort fears the Potter line, and thus he came looking for James and Harry (but not Lily), for some unfanthomable reason (this is where most of the theories of the "potter line" differ). For example, defenders of the "Gryffindor Heir" theory mantain that Voldemort believes that the Gryffindor heir will destroy the Slytherin heir, and thus tries to stop it by finishing off the Gryffindor line. There is a variety of shacky canon defending this one (such as the potters living in at "Godric's Hollow", a "clue" of that place being the traditional reasting place of Godric Griffindor). On the other hand, the other view is that, since JKR has told us through Dumbledore that "what's important is not who your parents are but what you make of your life" (could someone answering this post include the directions to the original phrase? I'm translating from memory AND from a non-english edition). It would be strange that suddenly JKR contradicted herself and Harry's powers were just the result of his blood line (and remeber that the fact that one is a good magician does not depend on your bloodline is a theme that crops up frecuently on the books). You also mention Lily as having "some other ancestory influence on her *wizarding skills*". This I find most improbable (even if fellow listees develop strange and dark theories aout Lily being adopted, the putative child of Voldemort, brother to Snape, etc.), since one of the particularities of the Gryffindor trinity (Harry, Ron and Hermione) is that they are a mudblood, a halfblood and a pureblood (sorry for the foul language), and having Lily become a pureblood herself would destroy this, which I find very significant. So, to answer your original question, why James and Harry but not Lily? The fact is, we don't know. Eruke mentions that V only says that he'll spare Lily it out cruelty, but I don't buy it. Someone as cruel as that would not have that much patience with a gibbering, hysterical-looking woman. My own answer in the Lily theory was that James's studies had taken him to experimenting with his son, and that Voldemort feared such experiments, but it's also very weak. Hopefully, book five will give a few more pieces of the puzzle (if it ever comes out; also, don't expect it to give ALL the pieces of the puzzle. it's far too central to give the solution so soon. I expect that Voldemort will reveal it, Evil overlord-like, in the "final showdown" in book seven). On the Gleam ------------ Audrey, posting for the first time, said: > What if Dumbledore's gleam is not because of Voldemort's actions that > Harry is relating but because of Voldemort's words? What if the > important thing is that Voldemort still believe's Lily's sacrifice > was THE reason Harry survived? I would have a gleam of triumph too > if I had kept my world's greatest enemy obsessing over a red herring > (or in this case a red Harry?) for thirteen years. It would also > mean that Snape's cover might hold up. It might not be easy for him > to get back in the good graces but at least it COULD be possible. > > What do you folks think? > > Audrey (who has donned her blindfold and is nervously > awaiting, "Ready, Aim, Fire"!) Very good first post, Audrey! Even if I don't buy it, it's a good theory. You just need to search for a bit of canon that will give the theory some sort of foundation. At any rate, I find unlikely that Snape is involved in yet another plot point, and I'd imagine that we would've heard something from him or from someone else by now. The fact that we haven't takes a great deal of punch from the theory. I do like it, though, because it fits with some of the basic precepts of one of my pet theories, MAGIC DISHWASHER (see below) Monica said: > I was wondering if anyone else has wondered > about how Pettigrew will pay Harry back for Harry not letting > Sirius and Lupin kill him. Dembeldei took up the glove and answered: > I've always surmised that it might be key that Voldemort was > resurrected from the combination of Harry's blood and Peter's > flesh, not realizing that Peter was in debt to Harry! > I am interested in seeing how this plays out (will V. or his magic > self combust when it hits this paradox, etc.?) >Dembeldei Katzefan explained: > There was some discussion, quite some time ago, about the > paragraph in GoF in which Harry tells Dumbledore about > Voldemort's using his blood in the resurrection ceremony. > Harry says, 'He said the protection my - mother left in me - he'd > have it, too. And he was right - he could touch me without hurting > himself, he touched my face.' For a fleeting instant, Harry thought > he saw a gleam of something like triumph in Dumbledore's > eyes." > > That 'gleam' was interpreted by some as triumph, all right, > because Dumbeldore realizes Voldemort has made himself > *more* vulnerable because of his use of Harry's blood (I don't > recall the explanation as to why this would be). > > But I like Dembeldei's theory that it may be the combination of > Harry's blood *and* Peter's flesh that does the trick, although it > doesn't really sound like 'payback' on Peter's part unless he's > aware that this could cause trouble for Voldie down the road and > opts not to say anything (Not that Voldemort sounds like the type > to entertain discussion and debate anyway. And I really wouldn't > mind seeing him self-combust....) > > Katzefan In fact, Katze, the discussion about the Gleam has come up several times, with plausible reasons every time. I can't even start to remember all of them, so I'll just go ahead and rescue my favourite from the history of the list (I know some of you will want to kill me for bringing up this theory again, but I just like it too much to let it fall into the anals of the list). This theory, named by it's creator, Pipsqueak ("Pip"), "the spygame" and acronymed by one of it's detractors "MAGIC DISHWASHER" mantains that the gleam in Dumbledore's eyes is of triuph, because Voldemort has falled to one of his master plans to bring about his destruction, namely the use of a flawed potion consisting of flesh of a *blood-debt- bound* servant, a *love-shielded* enemy's blood and a muggle's bone. For a detailed explanation of the theory, check messages #39854 (the re-cap), #39662 (first half of the theory), #40044 (second half of the theory) and #39908 (the flawed potion; search for "smallprint" to find it - without the quotes). Oh, just a word of caution if you've never heard of this discussion before: it's the longest I've ever seen in the lists, so if you want to read all about it, you're going to find it a daunting task. On Wizard Boxing ---------------- Marc revised: > I agree with you mostly, but I had thought, from the "dueling club" > in CoS, that there was a way for 2 people to spar/fight, without the > use of AK. I'd like to call it "wizard boxing". Here, 2 wizards/ > witches can match skills against one another without the possibility > of using any dangerous/illegal spells/curses. From what i can gather, > the only curse that cannot be *learned* to block is AK. It's not as easy. As I see it, the three unforgivables are unblockable. You can survive the Cruciatus and you can throw off the Imperius, but you cannot block any of them. Anyway, see bellow > So, I guess my revised question is, in this "wizard boxing", can > Harry match skills against the best wizards execpt for Dumbledore/ > Voldemort by book 7? > > Marc I think that the final showdown of the books is in fact going to be Harry vs. Voldemort, alone, even if he will have gotten there by a clever strategy built by Ron on the knowledge of Hermione. At that point, Voldemort would be debilitated but not so much that he's not more than a match for Harry. To answer your question, though, I do believe that Harry will be pretty powerful by them, certainly enough to take on Malfoy (Sr or Jr), Pettigrew, etc. However, I've still got troubles with the boxing idea, since in my experience in fantasy books involving magic is that magic duels (especially when killer magics are discarded) depend more on luck than in anything else. As described by M. Weiss and T. Hickman in "The Death Gate Cycle", a duel of of magics depends more on who thinks fastest of an attack the other does not think quickly how to stop. Like in a football match, luck makes everything uncertain. the best team will not always win, although in 100 matches they will win more than they will loose. Magic is only more so, since most attcks are just an unpredictable game of paper-stone-scissors. Hope that helps, Grey Wolf, who hopes he's not stoned for bringing MAGIC DISHWASHER back once again From kkearney at students.miami.edu Sat Aug 3 16:10:17 2002 From: kkearney at students.miami.edu (corinthum) Date: Sat, 03 Aug 2002 16:10:17 -0000 Subject: The Ancient Magic Witch theory, the fight back In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42076 I wrote: > Well, that's my theory. Lily's death wasn't the cause of Harry > survival. Instead, she chose to protect Harry rather than save > herself. Her love for him (and he ability with ancient magic) >saved > him. And Grey Wolf replied: > To be fair, Corinth, you should think of NOT including counter > arguments in your theories, especially if they're canon based, >since it > makes them easier to attack: you've provided the two main extracts >I > had thought of, and I didn't even have to translate them. Thanks, >at > any rate. Sorry, that's the scientist in me. :) No eliminating data simply because it doesn't fit my hypothesis. Better to defend my theory up front than wait for someone to ambush me later. But I don't think my explanations of these semi-contradictions are that far a stretch. Grey Wolf continued: > That's the main reason I introduced Lily's sacrifice as a part of >the > incantation; else, everyone would be using it, it would not have >been > forgotten. Or, if you think as kangasboy (aka pat mahony; aka roo) >that > "ancient magic" means "elemental magic", if the spell was as easy >as a > three-minute incantation (or even a week incantation, or whatever), > Voldemort would've had it more present, and it would not have >slipped > his mind. I guess I didn't phrase my original post very well. I didn't want to imply that the ancient magic was simply a long spell. A spell that could repel the Killing Curse would be quite handy, and therefore there must be a reason no one uses it anymore. Lily came across this magic, but decided it was not useful for some reason. Complicated, dangerous, unpredictable side-effects? I don't know. But when Voldemort attacked, Lily decided the risk was worthwhile. I still don't think her death was a necessary component of the spell. -Corinth From bard7696 at aol.com Sat Aug 3 17:16:23 2002 From: bard7696 at aol.com (darrin_burnett) Date: Sat, 03 Aug 2002 17:16:23 -0000 Subject: Snape and the Malfoys (was Re: Harry's Putative Death) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42077 Porphryia wrote: > Lucius never takes any pains to disguise his hostility towards Harry, > despite advising his son to do so. At the end of CoS he viciously > inform Harry that he'll meet the same nasty end as his meddling > parents, which rivals Draco himself for letting his true feeling > erupt in public. All excellent points, neatly skewering me. OK, I concede. Snape SHOULD know Lucius is not reformed, no matter how much he might want to believe it. I still maintain that it is possible Snape engaged in some willful ignorance of Lucius, or perhaps the sudden movement was just simply a realization that D-Day is now here and he has to get back into the fray. > Darrin wrote: > << > And I'm not convinced Dumbledore told Snape about the diary. > Dumbledore definitely operates on a need-to-know basis and if he had > ideas of Snape someday being a plant in V-Mort's camp again, he'd > want him as protected as possible from information that could betray > him. > >> > And Porpyhria: > Dumbledore operates on a need-to-know basis as far as concerns Harry, > who is barely out of childhood. But I'm not sure that extends to Snape who is obviously his left hand man in many respects. I think it would be flinty if Dumbledore *didn't* tell Snape about the horrific actions of the most prominent parent/alum in House Slytherin. > I'm holding on to my theory on this one for the simple reason that a spy shouldn't know everything in case of capture. Dumbledore shouldn't be letting Snape in on everything in case V-Mort got ahold of him and started playing around in his head. > In fact I wouldn't be surprised to think that Snape had been telling Dumbledore that Lucius was bad news all along. This would explain Dumbledore's utter lack of surprise at Lucius' connection to Tom Riddle at the end of CoS. Granted Hagrid and Arthur know about > Lucius' support for LV and his agenda, but you have to wonder where > that knowledge came from in the first place. It seems plausible to me that it could have originated from a well-placed mole among the DEs who would know Lucius better even than Ministry gossip. > Well, Lucius being a V-Mort supporter in the past is common knowledge. The suspicion is that he never reformed -- hardly an uncommon one -- and it appears that aside from Snape, none of the surviving DE's reformed -- and the jury's still out on Our Man Snape. > As Marina said: > << > But Snape's a *spy*, it's his job to distrust everyone, to know who > the bad guys are, and not to be taken in by charm. And why would > Lucius try to charm Snape into thinking he isn't a true DE, if he > believes that Snape *is* a true DE? > >> > > I agree completely. Snape isn't just competent; he is an extremely > suspicious person. He always assumes the worst of Harry, not to > mention Sirius, Lupin and Quirrell. Snape can tell when Harry is > lying by noticing when he blinks. We've never seen him give anyone > the benefit of the doubt. Even with Draco, I don't think Snape is > *taken in.* Snape *favors* Draco, meaning he sides with him whether > or not it's fair to do so, which is different from being snowed by > his charm. I can't imagine how Lucius, given what we know of him, > could succeed in fooling Snape. Assuming the worst of people he hates, Sirius, Lupin and Harry -- and maybe Quirrell, if there is any kernel of truth to Snape wanting the DADA job -- is hardly a sign of competence. He hates them, so of course he is going to be on the lookout for what they are doing. Dumbledore didn't consult Snape before hiring Lupin, or at least overrode any concerns, and Snape didn't know Sirius' full role until the end of GoF. This all ties back to my theory that D-Dore doesn't tell him everything. Nor should he. Now, take the case of Lucius. At one point in his life, Snape was a DE, and probably pretty happy about it. Something changed, whether it was something he witnessed, was ordered to do, or whatever, to sour him on V-mort and his crew. But there is still a bond there, especially for Snape, a guy who apparently didn't have any other friends BUT that Slytherin gang. For that matter, we don't know if Snape disagrees with the pureblood theory. He might be a little like the old Southern Democrats in the United States: "I don't want to hurt Negros," they'd say. "Just don't want them in my neighborhood." Which also could explain his torture of Hermione. Maybe he finds her just as distasteful as Draco does, and wants her out of Hogwarts, but certainly doesn't want her killed. Just the same as being suspicious of who you hate, sometimes we believe those we want to believe. > I agree that we really don't know if Snape's task is to spy again. > But I also agree that Snape's 'sudden movement' is meaningful > somehow, and that it points to Snape's past, present or prospective > relationship with Lucius somehow. I have a feeling this is > indicative of some future subplot between these two, which has > already been hinted at in Snape and Draco's mutual displays of > support for each other. I just don't think that Snape's reaction to > Lucius' name is surprise or shock; I suspect it's some other strong > feeling. OK... what is it? :) I still like shock and surprise. > > I'm being argumentative with Darrin today, but someday I promise I > will post all my support for his 'Snape hates teaching but is stuck > at Hogwarts' theory, which I really do support. > Darrin -- Whew, glad to see we agree on some things. From chetah27 at hotmail.com Sat Aug 3 17:54:14 2002 From: chetah27 at hotmail.com (aldrea279) Date: Sat, 03 Aug 2002 17:54:14 -0000 Subject: Please Tell Me When... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42078 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "ymekelly" wrote: > Can someone please tell me when the Order of the Phenix will be > released? Are they any rumores or dates? SOMETHING! > > Yamilee Okay, I do realize this isn't exactly cannon related....but according to harrypotternews.net, OoP is set to come out June 2003. Which sucks, because that means another year wait. But also, yesterday, a friend showed me a site that had "countdowns" on it for Harry Potter. One was counting down to the CoS movie, the other the PoA movie, and one the release of the OoP book. And here is that site: http://iharrypotter.net/ On it, on the right hand side, it says 309 Days Until Book 5. Huh. It seems like the accepted release date for OoP is next summer. ~Aldrea, who hopes the mods aren't forced to glare because of this thread. From rusalka at ix.netcom.com Sat Aug 3 18:10:32 2002 From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants) Date: Sat, 03 Aug 2002 18:10:32 -0000 Subject: Snape and the Malfoys (was Re: Harry's Putative Death) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42079 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "darrin_burnett" wrote: > Porphryia wrote: > > Dumbledore operates on a need-to-know basis as far as concerns > Harry, > who is barely out of childhood. But I'm not sure that > extends to Snape who is obviously his left hand man in many respects. > I think it would be flinty if Dumbledore *didn't* tell Snape about > the horrific actions of the most prominent parent/alum in House > Slytherin. > > > > I'm holding on to my theory on this one for the simple reason that a > spy shouldn't know everything in case of capture. Dumbledore > shouldn't be letting Snape in on everything in case V-Mort got ahold > of him and started playing around in his head. Yeah, but who cares if Snape is captured and reveals that he knew Lucius is a DE? It's not like Voldemort is going to go, "Oh, my gosh, Lucius is a DE? I had no idea! This changes all my evil plans!" Marina rusalka at ix.netcom.com From bard7696 at aol.com Sat Aug 3 18:53:19 2002 From: bard7696 at aol.com (darrin_burnett) Date: Sat, 03 Aug 2002 18:53:19 -0000 Subject: Snape and the Malfoys (was Re: Harry's Putative Death) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42080 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "marinafrants" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "darrin_burnett" wrote: > > Porphryia wrote: > > > Dumbledore operates on a need-to-know basis as far as concerns > > Harry, > who is barely out of childhood. But I'm not sure that > > extends to Snape who is obviously his left hand man in many > respects. > > I think it would be flinty if Dumbledore *didn't* tell Snape about > > the horrific actions of the most prominent parent/alum in House > > Slytherin. > > > > > > > I'm holding on to my theory on this one for the simple reason that > a > > spy shouldn't know everything in case of capture. Dumbledore > > shouldn't be letting Snape in on everything in case V-Mort got > ahold > > of him and started playing around in his head. > > Yeah, but who cares if Snape is captured and reveals that he knew > Lucius is a DE? It's not like Voldemort is going to go, "Oh, my > gosh, Lucius is a DE? I had no idea! This changes all my evil > plans!" Nooooo... but maybe that the diary is still out there, that lots of other V-Mort items are still in Lucius' basement -- it's entirely possible Lucius doesn't just hand everything back to V-Mort -- or that Ginny Weasley is a potential tool for V-Mort now that she has been touched by the diary. Sorry I ruined your attempt at sarcasm. Better luck next time Darrin From wjlvb at yahoo.co.uk Sat Aug 3 10:10:13 2002 From: wjlvb at yahoo.co.uk (=?iso-8859-1?q?W=20vB?=) Date: Sat, 3 Aug 2002 11:10:13 +0100 (BST) Subject: Ireland and Seamus In-Reply-To: <1028341378.2757.12124.m12@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <20020803101013.99848.qmail@web21310.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 42081 Dear all, I've noticed that in GF when Harry talks to Charlie about Quidditch World Cup four teams are mentioned: England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland. Moreover, QTTA says that British and Irish teams play in the same League. So far I've seen two explanations: a) in the Wizarding World Ireland is still a part of the UK b) Ireland and the UK have common culture and common history, thatswhy the teams are playing in the same League (like NBA qnd NHL). Moreover, Northern Ireland is a part of Ireland, as it is never mentioned as a separate entity. What do you think about it? Related question considers Seamus Finnegan. He is Irish but he studies in Hogwarts. Does it mean that there are no equivalents in Ireland? If there is a wizarding school in Ireland, why does he study in Hogwarts? Is he from Nothern Ireland? Does it mean that he (or his parents) might have had personal reasons for opting for Hogwarts? -- WvB --------------------------------- Get a bigger mailbox -- choose a size that fits your needs. http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/mail_storage.html [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From rpquate at earthlink.net Sat Aug 3 17:03:47 2002 From: rpquate at earthlink.net (redandgoldlion) Date: Sat, 03 Aug 2002 17:03:47 -0000 Subject: Harry's lineage and its importance Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42082 I am fairly new here. I have been searching the site, but it is so exstensive I decided just to post a message. Please excuse me if I repeat topics already discussed. As far as Harry's family goes, we know very little. We know of a few people he saw in the Mirror of Erised, the Dursleys, and of his parents. I know it has been suggested that Harry is most likely related to someone important, and has special powers. This, I feel makes sense, not only because he is the star of the series, but also because Voldemort wanted to kill him to begin with. Some say Harry is related to Gryffindor. I find this probable, for many reasons. First,his wand shot out gold and red sparks when he was first trying it out. Second, he pulled Godric Gryffindor's sword from Godric Gryffindor's hat(the sorting hat)in the chamber of secrests. As Dumbledore said, only a true Gryffindor could do that. The list goes on and on. He is also in Gryffindor house, as was Lily. Could he be related to Gryffindor through Lily? I suppose it is possible. But wouldn't Voldemort have been as eager to kill Lily as he was to kill Harry that night at Godric's Hollow? Just a thougt. Could he be related to Gryffindor through James? He could be, I suppose, though I can't think of anything in particular to back this up. What about Slytherin/Voldemort? Could he be related to Salazar and Riddle? This also has many facts to support it. I know Dumbledore said that Harry could speak parselmouth because of Voldemort's attack and the scar it left; it has also been said that the sorting hat wanted to put Harry in Slytherin because of his abililty to talk to snakes. Couldn't it be possible, though, that the hat wanted to put him in Slytherin because he is related to Slytherin? Some say Voldemort didn't want to kill Lily that night at Godric's Hollow because she was his daughter. I guess that could be true, but, judging by the fact that it didn't bother him to murder his father, I doubt it. Could Harry be related to Slytherin through is father? It has been mentioned countless times throughout the Harry Potter books that Harry looked a lot like his father. Voldemort also told Harry that they had a lot in common; they even looked something alike. If Voldemort looked like Harry and Harry looked like James, then all three would look much like each other, and we *know* that Voldemort is related to Slytherin. Now on to Dumbledore. Voldemort would obviously want to kill his greatest rival's family. Could James have been related to Dumbledore? He *did* leave his invisibily cloak to Dumbledore. How about Lily? Could she be part of Dumbledore's family? I think, please correct me if I'm wrong, but I *think* that Lily had auburn hair. I *know* that Dumbledore had auburn hair. Could they be related? If they are, could they be related to the Weasley's. I don't think he's related to the Weasley's,but it *is* possible. After all, doesn't Mrs.Weasley have a second cousin or something that is a muggle accountant? There is evidence to support Harry's relation to all these people and more, but there is also evidence that points other directions. I suppose we'll just have to wait until JKR comes out with her other books, if she ever finishes them, that is. Sorry this was so long. I hope I did everything right. ~redandgoldlion~ From rusalka at ix.netcom.com Sat Aug 3 21:08:07 2002 From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants) Date: Sat, 03 Aug 2002 21:08:07 -0000 Subject: Snape and the Malfoys (was Re: Harry's Putative Death) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42083 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "darrin_burnett" wrote: > > Yeah, but who cares if Snape is captured and reveals that he knew > > Lucius is a DE? It's not like Voldemort is going to go, "Oh, my > > gosh, Lucius is a DE? I had no idea! This changes all my evil > > plans!" > > > Nooooo... but maybe that the diary is still out there, that lots of > other V-Mort items are still in Lucius' basement -- it's entirely > possible Lucius doesn't just hand everything back to V-Mort -- or > that Ginny Weasley is a potential tool for V-Mort now that she has > been touched by the diary. The diary is not "still out there" in any meaningful sense: Harry stabbed it with a basilisk fang and wiped Tom Riddle's memories from it. It's now just an old blank book with a hole in the middle. Voldemort knows how much stuff he had before he got discorporated, and he knows how much stuff he has now. If anything important is missing, Lucius' basement is the first place he's likely to look even without Snape's help. Given the existence of the Imperio curse, *everyone* is a potential tool for V-mort, touched by the diary or not. And Ginny Weasley isn't exactly a key figure whose fate will make or break the Wizarding World. Overall, I would say that the risk attached to this information is miniscule compared to the risk of letting Snape go around thinking that one of his enemies is actually a trusted friend. Marina rusalka at ix.netcom.com From prefectmarcus at yahoo.com Sat Aug 3 21:13:30 2002 From: prefectmarcus at yahoo.com (prefectmarcus) Date: Sat, 03 Aug 2002 21:13:30 -0000 Subject: Harry saved from AK by his mother In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42084 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "aaoconnor2002" wrote: > Audrey (who has donned her blindfold and is nervously > awaiting, "Ready, Aim, Fire"!) Welcome Audrey. A couple of questions on your theory. Where did the scar come from and why does it hurt so much when Voldemort is doing evil? Why was Voldemort's touch so painful to Harry? Marcus From flower_fairy12 at yahoo.co.uk Sat Aug 3 20:50:51 2002 From: flower_fairy12 at yahoo.co.uk (flower_fairy12) Date: Sat, 03 Aug 2002 20:50:51 -0000 Subject: Harry's lineage and its importance In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42085 "redandgoldlion" wrote > How about Lily? > Could she be part of Dumbledore's family? I think, please correct me > if I'm wrong, but I *think* that Lily had auburn hair. I *know* that > Dumbledore had auburn hair. Could they be related? If they are, could > they be related to the Weasley's. I don't think he's related to the > Weasley's,but it *is* possible. After all, doesn't Mrs.Weasley have a > second cousin or something that is a muggle accountant? Lily had dark red hair. Just because Dumble & Lily have the same colour hair doesn't really mean that they are related. Harry & Cho have the same colour hair but they are not related. I really hope Harry & the Weasleys (great name for a band) are not related because that would be too bad. How would Harry & Ginny ever fall in love? :) *Rosie* :D From finwitch at yahoo.com Sat Aug 3 21:27:01 2002 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Sat, 03 Aug 2002 21:27:01 -0000 Subject: Harry saved from AK by his mother In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42086 Audrey wrote: > I have always felt that there was more to Harry's survival than a > simple case of "mother's sacrifice". If that was all it took to > protect a loved one then certainly Harry's case would not be as > unique as it apparently is. In the well documented history of the > Wizarding World there would have to have been at least a few other > examples of people protected by the ultimate sacrifice of someone > else, be it parent, spouse, etc. I'm not saying that Lily's > sacrifice didn't contribute to Harry's survival but I don't believe > it was the only factor. Why not? In several fairy tales & fantasy stories love conquers all magic, that love is strongest magic there is. And the kind when one's willing to give one's life without hesitation or question is the greatest love of all. I'm sure the other parents loved their offspring but they're living in somewhat middle-age culture. All might not even value the idea of sacrifising themselves for their children. (I'm pretty sure Malfoys don't). It is a question of values. > If we then think about what the other contributing factor(s) may be, > I see two possibilities: > > 1) There is something about Harry that we don't have knowledge of yet > that gave him the personal power to protect himself. Many threads > have discussed the theory that Harry may be the heir of Gryffindor. > The only thing we know for certain at this point is that there is > something about Harry that made Voldemort feel threatened, so > threatened that he felt he had to kill a one year old baby. Well there was something - but it might be just a prophecy of Harry overcoming him. > Personally, while I believe that Harry is the lucky recipient of a > great set of genes, I agree with Dumbledore's comment that what we > become is more important than what we are born. This leads to my > second possibility, which is the one I prefer to believe. Except that magic does not relate to genes like that! Look at Hermione or Lily. Or Voldemort - a half-muggle. Slytherins believe in 'pureblood' and what not, but it obviously doesn't held true. I don't think blood-line will be of any importance. > 2) There was someone else involved in protecting Harry that night. > Dumbledore may be the only wizard that Voldemort actively fears but > that doesn't mean there aren't others that are powerful enough to be > a problem to him, especially if they catch him unawares. My choice > would be Snape. He knew more curses at the age of 11 than most of > the 7th year students did. How much of a stretch would it be to > think he had some exposure to the "ancient magic" also? He might. > We know that he was spying for Dumbledore and had a life-debt that he > owed to James. We know that someone warned the Potters that their > lives were in danger. We know that Snape did something that > convinced Dumbledore beyond a doubt of Snape's trustworthiness. What > if that something was saving Harry and almost destroying Voldemort in > the process? Snape might have destroyed Voldemort - finally. Only Harry got V first. That would explain Snape's treatment of Harry - this boy did in few seconds, before the age of two, something that made all his careful planning etc. to be in vain! He envies it, obviously. He wants the attention and glory as much as Harry doesn't want it... > Now for my theory (Woo-Hoo, here it is everybody back now!) > > Consider this scenario. Snape is spying for Dumbledore and gets word > that the Potters are targets. Snape reports this fact and the > Potters go into hiding. Then Snape gets word that the secret is out > and Voldemort is on his way to Godric's Hollow. Snape is in a > quandary. He has the life-debt obligation to worry about but also > his cover as a spy. Life-debt obligation wins out and he goes to > save the Potters but arrives too late to save James and Lily. In > fact he arrives just in time to work some ancient magic that, in > combination with Lily's sacrifice, is enough to save Harry and > reflect the curse on Voldemort. The house is destroyed but is > Voldemort? Nobody knows at that moment and Snape doesn't dare stick > around in case the Death-Eaters show up trying to find their master. > He returns to Dumbledore to find out that Hagrid has been sent to the > Potters and, miracle of miracles, has pulled baby Harry from the > wreckage alive. Snape destroyed the house, then? Or maybe Harry did - without knowing what he was doing, of course (which is why Dursleys don't leave him alone in the house...). Just one point - if Snape had been there, he would have known about Sirius Black NOT being the Secret-Keeper, which he obviously did not know - not until the end of GoF (or why all the fuss in the shack? Attack against Black? Just grudge against Black? It's a bit too much... If Snape knew, Shrieking Shack in PoA doesn't fit in!) > Now what to do? (This is where my thoughts turn to Dumbledore as a > quasi-manipulator) Dumbledore doesn't know for certain where > Voldemort is or what his condition is. This would be the first piece > of information that needs to be ascertained. The people most likely > to know are the Death-Eaters so off goes Snape gathering information > again. Of course no one can know of Snape's participation in the > events at Godric's Hollow so baby Harry, the innocent bystander, > becomes UrbanLegend Harry, the Boy Who Lived. Lots of people knew within 24 hours. Hagrid knew - that's why he arrived to Godric's Hollow. Owls flying around, possibly fire-place talk, too. EVERY DE knew. (Including former DEs like Snape, due to that mark!) Would they not tell? Would they not go immediately to authorities to save their skins? They acted first because they *knew* first! Others only heard rumors and had to think twice... until too many knew. I think some House-elf might have been there - like Dobby - who lost not only most of the family, but also the house... > Dumbledore turns Harry over to the Dursley's to protect him > emotionally from the trauma of growing up famous and physically from > any revenge by Voldemort or the Death-Eaters. This distancing from > the Wizarding World only reinforces the legend as time goes by. > By the time Dumbledore has a grip on Voldemorts whereabouts and the > rest of the Death-Eaters have been arrested or run back to the side > of the good screaming "Imperious" no one would believe Snape if the > truth were told. Urban legends are like that. Dumbledore isn't > going to let the kneazle out of the bag because he knows Voldemort > isn't completely gone and it always pays to have a Snape up your > sleeve. > > So what do we have by the time Harry enters Hogwarts? We have > BitterSnape who was and still is an ambitious man with dreams of the > Order of Merlin dancing in his head, who is responsible for defeating > the greatest dark wizard of the century, and can't even take credit > for it. Nice-- but I don't buy it. > We have Dumbledore who trusts Snape implicitly because, when it > really mattered, Snape chose the side of good and, even though > recognition has been what he has always wanted, has lived without the > recognition he deserves for all these years. Maybe not happily, all > the references to the "famous Harry Potter" show that, but he has > lived with it. Could be-- but Harry does remember that night - and he did not see Snape there! > Perhaps most importantly, we have a villain who has spent 10 years > obsessing about the boy who beat him. We see this in SS/PS, why > would Quirrelmort take the risk of exposing himself by trying to kill > Harry at the Quidditch game? Why, at the end when Harry had the > stone in his pocket, did Quirrelmort attack him physically and not > just "Accio" the stone from him? The reason is one of the oldest > motivating forces in literature, simple revenge. Because it couldn't be accioed. I'm sure there are some limits to it! Like that you must have touched the thing (or something akin to it) before. The Philosopher's stone was unicue and none but it's creators - Flamel and Dumbledore - and Harry had ever touched it. > We see the same thing in GoF. Voldemort could use any enemies' blood > but, no, it has to be Harry's. Granted Voldemort has a couple of > other thoughts, namely he believes he will get extra protection from > Harry's blood and that he will prove to the Death-Eaters that Harry > is beatable but it probably would have been better strategically to > regain his body quietly and get his forces in order. Voldemort can't > see the forest for the trees anymore and I am sure Dumbledore is > counting on this. > > A lot of mention has been made of the triumphant gleam in > Dumbledore's eyes that is mentioned near the end of GoF > > ""He said my blood would make him stronger than if he'd used > someone else's," Harry told Dumbledore. "He said the protection my - > my mother left in me - he'd have it too. And he was right - he could > touch me without hurting himself, he touched my face." > For a fleeting instant, Harry thought he saw a gleam of something > like triumph in Dumbledore's eyes." (GoF, US paperback edition page > 696) > > What if Dumbledore's gleam is not because of Voldemort's actions that > Harry is relating but because of Voldemort's words? What if the > important thing is that Voldemort still believe's Lily's sacrifice > was THE reason Harry survived? I would have a gleam of triumph too > if I had kept my world's greatest enemy obsessing over a red herring > (or in this case a red Harry?) for thirteen years. It would also > mean that Snape's cover might hold up. It might not be easy for him > to get back in the good graces but at least it COULD be possible. He can't get back. He's the 'one who has left me for ever. We will kill him, of course.' That gleam -- yes, it means that Voldemort was misktaken *somehow* about the protection - like that it's in soul and not in blood... or that Harry had worn it out when fighting Quirrell? The fact that Voldemort is now *mortal* is also a victory worth a short gleam by itself. That it had to be Harry's blood told Dumbledore something about Harry - and Voldemort. He has bone of his father (whom he hated and who hated him), flesh of his servant(who is in life-debt to Harry) and Blood of his enemy, forcibly taken. (Interesting: which part is loving Voldemort?) *Harry Potter* is Voldemort's enemy - and one Voldemort considers his *worthiest* enemy. That is no small matter. Harry had escaped *without* his mother's extra protection and knowing he didn't have it. Point two for Harry - courage and defiance against a powerful wizard. Three: Harry nearly did it again and alone at that! What can he do when he has his friends and supporters nearby? All this not worth a gleam? Finwitch From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Sat Aug 3 22:05:43 2002 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (bboy_mn) Date: Sat, 03 Aug 2002 22:05:43 -0000 Subject: Harry saved from AK by his mother In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42087 - SCROLL DOWN FOR MSG - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "prefectmarcus" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "aaoconnor2002" wrote: Snip from Audrey's Post: > > > Audrey (who has donned her blindfold and is nervously > > awaiting, "Ready, Aim, Fire"!) > Marcus Responds: > Welcome Audrey. > > A couple of questions on your theory. Where did the scar come from > and why does it hurt so much when Voldemort is doing evil? Why was > Voldemort's touch so painful to Harry? > > Marcus Here's a quick, very minimal explanation- 1.) Where did the scar come from and why does it hurt so much when Voldemort is doing evil? First, that scar is very unique. No one has ever survived a death curse before, so no one can predict or anticipate it's characteristics. Next, not only is the scar a result of a magic curse, it is also the result of the combining forces of Love and Hate, and perhaps, the combining of all those forces along with some yet unknown internal force possessed by Harry. That's certainly a lot of force all concentrated in on spot. So, my theory is that, not only was some magical residue left by the curse, but a great deal of emotional residue. It's is through this emotional residue that Harry is intimately linked to Voldemort. Through a magical emotional bond/scar, Harry's physical scar reflects Voldemorts feelings. When Voldemort is near, the intensity of that feelings overwhelm Harry. Voldemort's feelings are consistently negative, so the sensations in the scar are negative (pain). 2.)Why was Voldemort's touch so painful to Harry? The only time I am aware of that Voldemort made physical contact with Harry is in the graveyard when Voldemort regains his body. My guess is the pain in his scar, was simply a result of Voldemort being in such close proximity. It wasn't specifically the touch; although how much close can you get than touching someone? Being that close to the evil, murderous, hateful feelings of Voldemort; allowed those intense negative feeling to be reflected in the scar. Harry's feeling was intense because the Voldemort's emotions were intense, negative, and very close. Note: It's doubtful that anyone can truly explain how and why the scar acts the way it does since, even in the fictional world of the book, it is unique. But I believe that the combined forces of magic, love, & hate left Harry with a psychic link to Voldemort. Perhaps in the future Harry will be able to exploit that link. Perhaps as a way of spying on Voldemort. We already know that Harry's dreams have shown him, what we assume are real event, and possibly, although not clear, showed them in realtime as they occurred. Just some thoughts. bboy_mn From foran at vangor.de Sat Aug 3 22:25:47 2002 From: foran at vangor.de (magisterforan) Date: Sat, 03 Aug 2002 22:25:47 -0000 Subject: Amanda the Mystery Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42088 Hi Group, Just recently I noticed a misterious girl called Amanda, a kaukasian young female of Harry Potters year and house(?) in the flying lesson. While I cant find a person of that name in any of the books, not even with fulltext search, she gets a special treatment in the first movie: While the class is greeted summarily, Madame Hooch, while passing her, glances at her sideways and says: "Hello Amanda." Amanda is the brownhaired girl with the long single braid, third in line, a person we never get to see again specifically. Obviously there is no dramatic reason for that - yet. But why on earth should Columbus and Kloves introduce her, if not for some hidden circumstance JKR introduced to them? Time was short, nonetheless this was left in the film when many other things were cut out. Can you help me on this? Direct responses to foran at vangor.de would be appreciated as I cant scan all the posts all the time. :-[ Kind Regards, Wolfgang G. Wettach aka Magister Foran Webmaster http://hogwartsonline.de From pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk Sat Aug 3 22:51:30 2002 From: pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk (bluesqueak) Date: Sat, 03 Aug 2002 22:51:30 -0000 Subject: "Re: Happy Birthday to Harry" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42089 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., wrote: > Polly said.... > > > > Happy Birthday to Harry and JK Rowling!!! > > By the way, how old would he be this year, since book 5 is so late? > > Many Happy Returns, > > Polly > > Their birthday was actually 2 days ago, July 31st. Harry would be > 22 on this birthday. That if he was born in 1980 as the timelines on > the HP Lexicon suggest. Does this mean the Quidditch World Cup is being played this year? Since Harry had just turned 14 in GoF then the next one would be when he's just turned 18 (end of Book 7) and then the next when he's just turned 22. If so - Go the Home Nations! (England preferably, but heck, any of the four will do! Pip From purple_801999 at yahoo.com Sat Aug 3 22:33:26 2002 From: purple_801999 at yahoo.com (purple_801999) Date: Sat, 03 Aug 2002 22:33:26 -0000 Subject: Snape and the Malfoys (was Re: Harry's Putative Death) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42090 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "darrin_burnett" wrote: Darrin wrote: > For that matter, we don't know if Snape disagrees with the pureblood > theory. He might be a little like the old Southern Democrats in the > United States: "I don't want to hurt Negros," they'd say. "Just don't want them in my neighborhood." > > Which also could explain his torture of Hermione. Maybe he finds her just as distasteful as Draco does, and wants her out of Hogwarts, but certainly doesn't want her killed. > > Just the same as being suspicious of who you hate, sometimes we > believe those we want to believe. > For some reason I see Snape drawn to Voldemort's camp more by the opportunity to practice the Dark Arts than by any prejudice against Muggles and the like. Sirius said Snape has always been drawn to the DA and knew more curses than most of the older students at Hogwart's when he first arrived (GoF paraphrasing). I also have a personal theory that Snape was in love with Lily Evans when they were students at Hogwarts. As for his torture of Hermione I think that is just Snape picking on her for being part of Harry's crowd and a know it all more than her being Muggle-born. I think he's shown more cruelty to Neville who's from a well known wizarding family than Hermione. > > -Olivia Grey From pat_mahony at hotmail.com Sun Aug 4 01:34:05 2002 From: pat_mahony at hotmail.com (kangasboy) Date: Sun, 04 Aug 2002 01:34:05 -0000 Subject: Harry saved from AK by his mother In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42091 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "aaoconnor2002" > I have always felt that there was more to Harry's survival than a > simple case of "mother's sacrifice". If that was all it took to > protect a loved one then certainly Harry's case would not be as > unique as it apparently is. In the well documented history of the > Wizarding World there would have to have been at least a few other > examples of people protected by the ultimate sacrifice of someone > else, be it parent, spouse, etc. I'm not saying that Lily's > sacrifice didn't contribute to Harry's survival but I don't believe > it was the only factor. What if the other factor was the fact that Lily didn't have to die? Voldemort told her to stand aside (for what reason, I won't even begin), thus giving her the choice. Many have made the point as to why Voldemort (who kills indiscriminately) seemed reluctant to kill Lily. I think that, given his nature, Voldemort wouldn't offer that luxury to many, probably noone. The fact that he gave Lily a choice (not much of one, but a choice nonetheless), and still chose to die augmented the power of her sacrifice. I still stand by my original position that if Lily or anyone else protected Harry from the AK as part of a contrived spell, it belittles the sacrifice of pure love and hope that Lily made. Roo, aka Kangasboy, aka Pat Mahony, who just happens to like having a variety of alter egos, thank you very much ; ) From bard7696 at aol.com Sun Aug 4 01:55:06 2002 From: bard7696 at aol.com (darrin_burnett) Date: Sun, 04 Aug 2002 01:55:06 -0000 Subject: Snape and the Malfoys (was Re: Harry's Putative Death) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42092 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "purple_801999" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "darrin_burnett" wrote: > > Darrin wrote: > > > For that matter, we don't know if Snape disagrees with the > pureblood > > theory. He might be a little like the old Southern Democrats in the United States: "I don't want to hurt Negros," they'd say. "Just > don't want them in my neighborhood." > > > > Which also could explain his torture of Hermione. Maybe he finds > her just as distasteful as Draco does, and wants her out of Hogwarts, > but certainly doesn't want her killed. > > > > Just the same as being suspicious of who you hate, sometimes we > > believe those we want to believe. > > Olivia wrote: > > For some reason I see Snape drawn to Voldemort's camp more by the > opportunity to practice the Dark Arts than by any prejudice against > Muggles and the like. > > Sirius said Snape has always been drawn to the DA and knew more > curses than most of the older students at Hogwart's when he first > arrived (GoF paraphrasing). I also have a personal theory that Snape > was in love with Lily Evans when they were students at Hogwarts. > > As for his torture of Hermione I think that is just Snape picking on > her for being part of Harry's crowd and a know it all more than her > being Muggle-born. I think he's shown more cruelty to Neville who's > from a well known wizarding family than Hermione. > Oh, you're right, I bet Snape liked the idea of being given free rein to play with the Dark Arts all he wanted too. Maybe he still does, which is why D-Dore keeps him far away from the DADA job. It would be like putting an alcoholic in charge of the liquor section of a grocery store. While I'm not as keen on the soapish stuff with Snape being in love with Lily, I think it is possible some kind of relationship with a Muggle-born (or even a non-wizard Muggle), be it a romantic relationship, a family tie he never knew or a good friendship, spurred the betrayal of V-mort. Snape with unrequited love for Lily would tie in a lot of threads, though. You're right about Neville, but my defense to that is that Neville is borderline Squib (at least, so far) and Snape despises incompetence. My own pet theory about his torture of Hermione is also that he fears she will someday eclipse his accomplishments. I believe any successful story needs pure good, pure evil and grey in the middle. I am not one the believes that modern heroic epics, which is what these books are, need to have everyone shades of grey. Harry and Dumbledore should represent pure good and Draco and Voldemort represent pure evil. (If only Draco would hurry along and become competent evil.) BUT... Snape should be "pure" grey, which is why I floated the idea of him being caught in the middle. Too racist for polite society but not racist enough for V-Mort. Darrin -- Proudly celebrating the P.R. campaign that proclaimed bald as sexy. From coriolan_cmc at hotmail.com Sun Aug 4 02:49:33 2002 From: coriolan_cmc at hotmail.com (coriolan_cmc2001) Date: Sun, 04 Aug 2002 02:49:33 -0000 Subject: Skrewt News (filk) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42093 Skrewt News (GoF, Chap. 24) To the tune of Footloose THE SCENE: Outside Hagrid's cabin The Care of Magical Creatures (CMC) class is being taught with a substitute. Harry is concerned about Hagrid's unexplained absence. HARRY: What's wrong with Hagrid? DRACO: Oh he hasn't been attacked, Potter, if that's what you're thinking. No, he's just too ashamed to show his big, ugly face. HARRY: What d'you mean?. DRACO: (pulling out a folded page of newsprint) There you go. Hate to break it to you. Potter. ... (Suddenly, RITA SKEETER seems to Apparate out of nowhere, grabs the article from Draco, and begins to read it herself, accompanied by a CHORUS OF SLYTHERINS jitterbugging (what else?) with exuberant Schadenfreude over Hagrid's plight and the Trio's discomfort.) SKEETER Dumbledore's HR Is really sub-par He hired Moody Weird dude, he's trigger-happy But ain't that new man That has me worried the most It's that part-human he gave The Magic Care post SKEETER & CHORUS So I've/she's got this news, Skrewt news, guess how they reproduce? Crabs, they grab manticores to make babs Did Hagrid do what our laws forbid? Skrewts' off-shoot, the crisis' now acute! SKEETER His teaching's so cruel, bringin' horrors to school His skrewts are really red-hot He's learning burning seminars Nor can someone tell him his Flobberworms always bite He's saying he has fun Seems him and Potter are so tight But we know that he's only a SKEETER & CHORUS .Brute uncute, that's the man raisin' Skrewts If his `griff comes by they're/we're all scared stiff Super scoop, I'll/she'll give you the full poop: Heed this screed, he's a giant half-breed SKEETER His mum's an evil giant Their kind ain't too compliant They fought for Lord Voldemort So turn him loose .. SKEETER & CHORUS Loose, cut loose, from our school please vamoose! Giant guy, time to tell ya bye-bye! CMC's too good for the likes of he! Can't giant to his mountain transplant? Brute uncute, that's the man raisin' Skrewts Did Hagrid do what our laws forbid? Heed this screed, he's a giant half-breed Loose, cut loose, from our school please vamoose! Albus Dumble cut Albus Dumble cut Albus Dumble cut Albus Dumble cut Albus Dumble cut Albus Dumble cut Albus Dumble cut him loose! HARRY (spoken, outraged) Flobberworms haven't even got teeth! - CMC HARRY POTTER FILKS http://home.att.net/~coriolan/hpfilks.htm (updated on 8/2/02 with 34 new filks) NOTE: CMC in the filk above refers to Care of Magical Creatures, not the author From editor at texas.net Sun Aug 4 03:04:48 2002 From: editor at texas.net (Amanda Geist) Date: Sat, 3 Aug 2002 22:04:48 -0500 Subject: Another Snape/Lily person! Yaaay! was Snape and the Malfoys (was Re: Harry's Putative Death) References: Message-ID: <004701c23b63$c45b15e0$5c7c63d1@texas.net> No: HPFGUIDX 42094 Olivia, already a candidate for Worthy Person due to her email address, said > For some reason I see Snape drawn to Voldemort's camp more by the > opportunity to practice the Dark Arts than by any prejudice against > Muggles and the like. > > Sirius said Snape has always been drawn to the DA and knew more > curses than most of the older students at Hogwart's when he first > arrived (GoF paraphrasing). This dovetails nicely with my impressions. Another reason Olivia is a Worthy Person. But the very *best* reason is > I also have a personal theory that Snape > was in love with Lily Evans when they were students at Hogwarts. Ha HAAAH! Welcome aboard. This was the main theory I joined the list with, too. And have remained unshaken despite the attempts of the unlettered and unromantic to disillusion me. Keep the faith! Seriously, there seems to be quite a range of interpretations in that simple statement. So, for the record, my own personal theory is that Snape did indeed love Lily. That said, I don't for a minute think they were *ever* an "item," or were ever "involved." I think he either simply loved her and never said anything (I *said* I was a romantic, so sue me), or he did tell her and she let him down easy. I tend to favor the latter--it would add fuel to his hatred of James (which I think was already in place) when James *did* win her. I think Snape is the sort to sublimate, and would do just that, sublimating all the negative emotions of rejection off onto James, leaving Lily still as someone loved (albeit unattainable). Adding to that the horrifying (to Snape) possibility that Lily had *told* James about Snape's confession....and he could never *ask* whether she had, not if he's the type I think he is, too proud to show old hurt for any reason to anyone. No wonder he is so single-minded in his dislike of James. He's sublimated James and Lily so that James got all the bad emotion, and this on *top* of not liking him anyway. Still according to my personal theory, Snape *was* the spy who tipped off Dumbledore and the Potters that Voldemort was after them. I also think that Voldemort knew that Snape might like it if Lily survived; I think Snape is the sort of personality that *would* have asked Voldemort for her, to save her at least, of all of them (sort of the way the captain of the boat tried to save Indy's girlfriend in Raiders of the Lost Ark? speaking Voldemort's language, asking for her as a reward or something...). To my mind, this is the type of man who, once rebuffed, would never show the emotion again to *her*, but I think he might have asked Voldemort for her and Voldemort read between the lines. This, to me, is a good reason that Snape may be the DeathEater that Voldemort believes is gone forever, the one who will be killed. Because Voldemort knows he transgressed Snape's personal code and murdered someone Snape loved, and knows Snape well enough to know he wouldn't forgive that. In this light, I think Snape's task *is* to go back and spy again, and the hard thing for him will be telling Lily's murderer that he's come to his senses, she was just a *woman,* how silly of him, dime a dozen, etc. I think Snape is pale because he has to say that, and transgress his personal code himself. This is as much a betrayal of Lily to that type of Javert personality as leading Voldemort to her door. On the other hand, there's a good case to be made that JKR *wants* us to think Snape's the DeathEater who's gone forever, and *wants* us to think Karkaroff is one Voldemort labels the coward. For that very excellent reason, the case can be made that Snape is the coward. All my previous theorizing about Snape and Lily would still work under that; it would simply change what Snape's task is and why he looks pale. Anyway, for all you people who've ever said "eeeurgh! Snape and Lily! Bleah! Greasy hair! Liked curses! Had she no taste??? I just can't *see* them together!" etc.----> Neither Can I. I don't think anything intimate at all went on, other than Snape going out on a limb and baring a bit of his soul to her. And I think she was probably gracious enough to let him down as easily as that sort of man (boy) can be. No kissing. No bushes. Just love. I also think it's pure torture for Snape to see Harry, who looks so much like James, but has Lily's eyes. I think it plays havoc with his sublimation game and dredges up emotions he'd thought buried for years--both positive and negative--and is making him even more unpleasant to be around. He seems a logical sort, and the irrationality of his reactions to Harry and Harry's friends seems to be rooted in something deeper than simple schoolboy rivalry. There is a primal, blind element to it. There had to be some stronger emotions in there. Oh, that was fun. It's been ages since I put the whole Amanda's Unified Theory of Snape Loved Lily out there!! C'mon, Darrin, get carving. You hate Snape, won't admit to any finer emotions in the man, and you never ever put little hearts around any of *my* posts, anyway.... You Snape is a Vampire loons, too. Olivia and me and our allies can take it! --Amanda From bard7696 at aol.com Sun Aug 4 04:05:32 2002 From: bard7696 at aol.com (darrin_burnett) Date: Sun, 04 Aug 2002 04:05:32 -0000 Subject: Another Snape/Lily person! Yaaay! was Snape and the Malfoys (was Re: Harry's Putative Death) In-Reply-To: <004701c23b63$c45b15e0$5c7c63d1@texas.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42095 Amanda wrote: > > C'mon, Darrin, get carving. You hate Snape, won't admit to any finer > emotions in the man, and you never ever put little hearts around any of *my* > posts, anyway.... You Snape is a Vampire loons, too. Olivia and me and our > allies can take it! > > --Amanda Hey now, I don't hate Snape. I just don't put him up on the same pedestal many members do and I guess that translates to hatred in some eyes. He's a great character. But, he's a lousy teacher (the discussion of which, way back when, is what started all this Darrin-hates-Snape stuff) and a jealous, petty person. I think he's a wonderfully drawn character, but I would rather drink one of his poision potions than have dinner with that character. But what made Snape turn is one of the most intriguing questions in the series. I'm looking forward to the answer. I dislike the Snape-Lily thing because of the inherent soap-operaish quality, not because of any objection to Snape, but I do agree it makes sense. And your theory about that being why V-Mort attempted to spare Lily is intriguing. And in a broader sense, the idea of Snape's worldview changing because of a relationship with a Muggle-born is very appealing. Actually, as far as Snape's ladyloves go, the Narcissa Malfoy theory that was floated a while back seemed cooler to me. And it would be great fun for Narcissa to suddenly announce at dinner: "Um, Lucius, remember that grandfather of mine who you never met because he was killed in a duel with a Gryffindor? Well, he was actually a dockworker from Liverpool and hated magic. We only said he was magic so you'd marry me and take care of my family's debts, but I love Severus and I'm leaving you now. Oh, and Draco is HIS, not yours!" But I digress. OK, if Snape-Lily must be, allow me to cast my vote with the unrequited love theory rather than any kind of love triangle where Lily chose James over Snape. As you point out, it's not really a tough choice, is it? It would be especially poignant if Snape had never told her. That's not to say she didn't know -- women can be pretty perceptive about things like that (except Amanda has failed to pick up that I'm deeply in love with her and DO put little hearts on her posts :P) -- but there was a certain dignified, unspoken understanding between Snape and Lily. Which leads me, if I can parry back with a theory following up on Snape-Lily... What if Lily convinced James to save Snape? What if she was the one who got wind of what Sirius had planned and told James to save Snape? Is it possible the life-debt was to Lily? And his turning on Voldemort came when he discovered the Potters were to be killed? It can allow for your theory as to why V-Mort tried to spare Lily. Or it can simply be explained that the best way for Snape to repay that debt to Lily would be to try to save his rival, James. And for Snape to not only fail, but to lose Lily as well, goes a long way to explaining why he's such a bitter person. This would mean V-Mort tried to spare Lily for another reason. (I sometimes have the sinking feeling that V-Mort, an orderly sort, was just wanting to kill Harry first and would have killed Lily right after, regardless of what she did, and all this "Why not kill Lily?" stuff is just a wild goose chase.) Two holes in mine own theory: 1) It forces us to deal with something that is never easy to come to grips with, namely Dumbledore being wrong about something. He has told Harry that Snape was in debt to James, and prefaced the conversation by saying he wouldn't lie, so the explanation is that he was mistaken. Fix: Snape perceived the real truth behind James' action and knew where his debt lay and didn't tell D-Dore. And in many cases, actions taken to repay the debt to Lily will also repay the debt to James, so maybe D-Dore is playing with words a bit to shield Harry from the idea of Snape lusting after his mother. 2) If Snape is so bitter because he has this undischarged life debt over his head, wouldn't he be a lot happier to see Harry so he can finally do something useful for Lily's memory? Fix: Several explanations, the first of which is Harry's incredible likeness to James, which would just stir all kinds of hatred for Snape, who lost his lady love to that face. Second, he would hate this product of James and Lily's love just out of sheer spite. Third, and probably too complex psychologically. What if Snape is somehow comfortable with his bitterness? For him, discharging the debt and being clear would be as frightening as someone whose spent his entire adult life in prison being released at age 80. Maybe he simply doesn't WANT to deal with the debt, figuring it's easier for him to live with the bitterness than to face a life without a reason to be bitter. And therefore, he hates Harry, knowing that he will be forced to act to save the little brat. Trying to get him expelled is a way to get the matter taken out of his hands. But in the end, I still hope Snape-Lily isn't the answer. Darrin -- The Snape is a Vampire Loons would be a good name for a band. From lilac_bearry at yahoo.com Sun Aug 4 04:18:42 2002 From: lilac_bearry at yahoo.com (Lilac) Date: Sat, 3 Aug 2002 21:18:42 -0700 (PDT) Subject: How do you say Parvati? Message-ID: <20020804041842.68951.qmail@web40312.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 42096 I was talking to some neighbors tonight who have just moved here from India, and I was asking them about Parvati and Padma Patil, the names (and the meanings...they haven't read HP before). They corrected my pronouciation ......it's PAR-va-ti , not Par-VA-ti. A couple of months ago on the list, we were talking about the significance of these names (Hindu deity who are twins, etc.) so ....if anyone cares, now you know the Indian pronounciation :). It hurts my ears when I hear Neville say it on the DVD now... Lilac (who was actually pronouncing it Puh-VAR-ti until the second time through the series, when she actually read it slower to concentrate on the names. Hermione was Hair-me-own for me until book four...glad JKR cleared that up!) ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~ "Tut, tut --- hardly any of you remembered that my favorite color is *lilac*. I say so in Year with the Yeti." --Gilderoy Lockhart, COS --------------------------------- Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From catlady at wicca.net Sun Aug 4 06:39:18 2002 From: catlady at wicca.net (catlady_de_los_angeles) Date: Sun, 04 Aug 2002 06:39:18 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42097 Aldrea wrote: << When Draco "tried to make friends" with Harry, he did so by insulting the first real friend Harry had ever had. And, when looking at the text and thinking about Draco's character as we know it( thus far), the *only* reason he went to see Harry was because everyon was "saying all down the train that Harry Potter's in this compartment". >> Before that scene on the Hogwarts Express, there was the scene at Madam Malkin's robe shop, where Harry and Draco were standing on adjacent chairs to have their hems pinned up. In the robe shop, Draco tried to make friends with Harry without knowing who Harry was. Draco did a *very* poor job of trying to make friends, boasting about his family and not even pretending sympathy at hearing that both Harry's parents were dead, but he tried. Ginny Powell wrote: << Do we know how old Rita is; maybe she was in Slytherin with Snape? >> In GoF, when Skeeter dragged Harry into Filch's janitor's closet, when she tested her Quick-Quotes Quill, it wrote "Attractive blonde Rita Skeeter, 42". It was lying about "attractive" and telling the truth about "blonde", so I deduce that her age was At Least 42, therefore her birth year was no later than 1952. It seems any Skeeter-Snape relationship must have been AFTER Hogwarts. Grey Wolf wrote: << My answer (and please note this is part of my theory) is that this "ancient" magic groups all the spells that, for some reason or another, have not been used for quite some time, for whatever reasons. >> Roo replied: << I always interpreted the "ancient magic" alluded to in HP as referring to the most basic primeval forces from which all magic stems. (snip) His insistence that it was love, rather than magic, that saved and protected Harry, indicates that there are things more powerful than the magic that is used by wizards. >> I agree with what I quoted from Roo. "Ancient magic" *must* be more than obsolete old historical spells, so I believe that it is the magic that existed before there were witches and wizards, or even humans. I disagree with the part of Roo's theory that wandless magic done by children feeling strong emotion is "ancient magic" -- that isn't ancient ENOUGH. DOES ANYONE KNOW WHETHER THE UK edition of FB gives the critters' sizes in centimeters and kilograms instead of inches and pounds? Grey Wolf wrote: << the love shield spell, which could stop even the normally unstopable AK, but which required a human sacrifice to make it work >> That was in a fic that I read on ffnet back in 2000. I can't remember the title or the author, but the love shield spell was named the Amor Fati spell. Amanda wrote: << But if Jan is right, and there is a charm or spell that can transmute a willing and loving death into a powerful protection, I can see another way Dumbledore could exit. A very likely way. >> Yes, that occurs in (SPOILER WARNING!) R. J. Anderson's Snape/Maudie trilogy. It's on SugarQuill and other places. Olivia Grey wrote: << made me wonder if perhaps Harry somehow wouldn't be tempted by Voldemort into accepting a "normal life" instead of fufilling his destiny to destroy him. (snip) It would make an interesting fan fiction though.;) >> Yes, that occurs in Barb's trilogy on schnoogle.com: HP & the Psychic Serpent, HP & the Time of Good Intentions, HP & the Triangle Prophecy. From foxmoth at qnet.com Sun Aug 4 14:39:21 2002 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 04 Aug 2002 14:39:21 -0000 Subject: TBAY re:Another Snape/Lily person! Yaaay! In-Reply-To: <004701c23b63$c45b15e0$5c7c63d1@texas.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42098 The sun is setting on the Bay. The good ship LOLLIPOPS (Love of Lily Left Ire Polluting Our Poor Severus) rides at anchor. Over the silver water comes an eerie cackling sound, and a water bird, black against the fading sky, comes to circle above the mast. Declining to perch there, because, well, webbed feet don't perch, the bird descends to deck level, and as the last ray of sunlight fades from the horizon, the birdshape alters, becoming a woman in a cape and sunglasses. As the sun has now set, Pippin puts the sunglasses in her pocket and says, "Did someone call for a vampire Loon?" "That would be me", says Amanda. "It is against my personal code to lie. I said, 'You Snape is a Vampire loons, too. Olivia and me and our allies can take it!'" "But," says Pippin, "There is no mutual exclusion between Snape is a Vampire and Snape Loved Lily. " "There is too," says Amanda, with the pleasure which only an HPfGU'er can take in rehashing an argument for the umpteenth time. "Because vampires are d-" "Vampires are NOT dead," says Pippin, "and I have canon to prove it." They are Beings, that's quite clear from FBAWTFT, and if they were dead, they'd be Has-beens. " "But," Pippin continues,"that's not what I came here to argue about. You said," [quoth Amanda] >>Anyway, for all you people who've ever said "eeeurgh! Snape and Lily! Bleah! Greasy hair! Liked curses! Had she no taste??? I just can't *see* them together!" etc.----> Neither Can I. I don't think anything intimate at all went on, other than Snape going out on a limb and baring a bit of his soul to her. And I think she was probably gracious enough to let him down as easily as that sort of man (boy) can be. No kissing. No bushes. Just love.<< Pippin continued, "I can see your point, but what if Lily wasn't always the Gryffindor Goddess everyone remembers? She could have gone through one of those awkward ugly duckling phases. Lots of girls do, you know. She and Snape could have been very close for a while. Then, you know how it is, one September Lily comes back and the braces have gone, the awkwardness is just a memory, the spots have cleared up...whatever. The Gryffindor boys who've been ignoring her take notice. It occurs to Lily that life has more to offer than Severus Snape. She figures what they had was puppy love. She's ready to move on, he isn't. Heartbreak, 101. She'd like to be just friends, but he's too proud and hurt for that. And then she takes up with his Quidditch rival, James...insult to injury. But he still loves her, can't help it. Vampires do get fixated, you know." Pippin From jferer at yahoo.com Sun Aug 4 15:06:09 2002 From: jferer at yahoo.com (jferer) Date: Sun, 04 Aug 2002 15:06:09 -0000 Subject: Harry's lineage and its importance In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42099 Flower Fairy:"Lily had dark red hair. Just because Dumble & Lily have the same colour hair doesn't really mean that they are related. Harry & Cho have the same colour hair but they are not related. I really hope Harry & the Weasleys (great name for a band) are not related because that would be too bad. How would Harry & Ginny ever fall in love? :)" This is one of the problems the wizard world has. If there are as few wizards as there would have to be if there's only 300 students at Hogwarts, for example, then the gene pool is really, really small, even with marrying Muggles. In other words, most wizards *are* related somehow. It's the six degrees of separation thing, though in the wizard world it's probably more like three or even two. (after all, in the Muggle world, Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan are sixth cousins.) The "Heir of Gryffindor" theory has the same problem. If descendancy is like what us Muggles are used to, then there ought to be Heirs of Slytherin and Heirs of Gryffindor and Heirs of Ravenclaw, etc., all over the place. From psychchick04 at yahoo.com Sun Aug 4 15:52:30 2002 From: psychchick04 at yahoo.com (Jacqueline Hendries) Date: Sun, 4 Aug 2002 08:52:30 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Lily/Snape ::bleh:: In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020804155230.19185.qmail@web9205.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 42100 Well, here's my two knuts on the Lily/Snape subject... I highly doubt that the young Severus Snape was in love with her (or anyone else, for that matter, really). Even as an adult, the man seems to have severe issues with interpersonal relationships. As a student, it's mentioned that he hated James fo his Quidditch skills... I think Snape was probably not so good at athletics, more academically orients, so it's likely that he also resented James's talent at academic subjects. And probably Lily's too (as they were Head Boy and Girl). *And*, if he was a Death Eater, possibly from a family of purebloods, I think it's even more likely that it would drive him up the wall that Lily, a "Mudblood," beats him out at academics. I highly doubt there's any love lost there. In my humble opinion, if a DE being in love with Lily was what was driving Voldemort to spare her (and I don't really think it was, he hasn't been too sympathetic to his sycophants so far) it would be Peter. It makes far more sense that he would be the one with unrequited love for her - I imagine that she acted as sort of a protector for him when Sirius and James got to teasing him, and maybe even helped him fight back against students from other houses (*cough* Snape *cough*) if he was picked on. Perhaps it's because I write too much MWPP fic, but I've definitely got Lily pegged as the kind of girl who would be both clever and kind enough to do that. He probably hero-worshipped her in much the same way that he did James and Sirius, but since she's of the female sex, that could quickly turn into adulation and outright "love". I don't think that Lily would ever have been aware of it, though... anyway. I have a lot of theories about Peter, but this is one of them. :) Questions, comments, and rotten tomatoes are all welcomed! ~ Aloha ===== jackie04 at brandeis.edu __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better http://health.yahoo.com From dedanaan at shaw.ca Sun Aug 4 15:26:26 2002 From: dedanaan at shaw.ca (karen mcvicker) Date: Sun, 04 Aug 2002 10:26:26 -0500 Subject: Where are sqibs schooled? References: Message-ID: <001301c23bcb$4ca6b9b0$6501a8c0@dedanaan> No: HPFGUIDX 42101 Hi there, I'm fairly new to this list and have been lurking so far, trying to keep track of all the very interesting threads and topics that are in discussion, so I'm sorry if this has been discussed before. What I was wondering is, where are the Wizarding children who turn out to be squibs educated? Are they educated at all and if so, what are they taught? I'm asking because it seems that the curriculum at Hogwarts is designed to teach those with magical ability. What use would all those classes on charms and transfiguration be to someone who isn't able to use magic at all? It seems to me that the classes they could participate in would be Muggle Studies, History of Magic and maybe some Potions (ones that wouldn't need a magical/wand component). Also, does anyone have any idea what the rate for sqib births are in comparison to births of children with magical ability? Are sqibs rare or fairly commonplace? Karen From jferer at yahoo.com Sun Aug 4 16:54:08 2002 From: jferer at yahoo.com (jferer) Date: Sun, 04 Aug 2002 16:54:08 -0000 Subject: Where are sqibs schooled? In-Reply-To: <001301c23bcb$4ca6b9b0$6501a8c0@dedanaan> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42102 Karen:"What I was wondering is, where are the Wizarding children who turn out to be squibs educated? Are they educated at all and if so, what are they taught? I'm asking because it seems that the curriculum at Hogwarts is designed to teach those with magical ability." Good point, but there's a lot of holes in our knowledge of education in the wizard world. We've been told by JKR that Hogwarts is the only magical school in the UK, yet estimates of the number of students ranges from 300-1000. My daughters' elementary school has 460 students; it's one of eleven such schools in a town of 60,000 people. Work it out, the wizarding population is small, small, small. If Hogwarts wasn't the only magical school, the problem would go away, but we've seen no evidence of it, and JKR denied it. Karen:" Also, does anyone have any idea what the rate for sqib births are in comparison to births of children with magical ability? Are sqibs rare or fairly commonplace?" They are commonplace enough that there's a business ("Kwikspell") that caters to their desire to fit in to the rest of wizard society. And what are Stan Shunpike and Ernie Prang from the Knight Bus? Squibs or something else? Can you picture them as Hogwarts students? I take a "squib" as someone born into the wizarding world with *no* magical ability, someone who *should* have had magical ability but didn't. From kkearney at students.miami.edu Sun Aug 4 17:19:42 2002 From: kkearney at students.miami.edu (corinthum) Date: Sun, 04 Aug 2002 17:19:42 -0000 Subject: Where are sqibs schooled? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42103 Karen asked: >What I was wondering is, where are the Wizarding children who >turn out to be squibs educated? Are they educated at all and if so, > what are they taught? >Also, does anyone have any idea what the rate for sqib births > are in comparison to births of children with magical ability? Are > sqibs rare or fairly commonplace?" In my mind, many wizards are educated at either muggle elementary schools or home(well, the British equivalent; the terminology confuses me). Squibs who attended muggle school would probably join the muggle world when they failed to receive an invitation to Hogwarts. Those who were educated at home seem would not appear to receive much more education. The only Squib we know of holds a job which does not require higher education. So I'd assume that squibs that choose not to leave the wizarding world eventually end up in jobs like this. I oppose arguments that say squibs are common. We only know of one. The existance of Kwikspell doesn't really imply that there are many squibs, only that a few were desperate enough that someone saw a way to make some easy money. I don't think Stan or Ernie from the Knight Bus are squibs. Every society has its underachievers as well as overachievers. These two simply were either unable to handle or didn't want a more magic-intensive job. -Corinth From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Sun Aug 4 17:31:52 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Sun, 04 Aug 2002 17:31:52 -0000 Subject: Where are sqibs schooled? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42104 Karen said: > What I was wondering is, where are the Wizarding children who > turn out to be squibs educated? Are they educated at all and if so, > what are they taught? I'm asking because it seems that the > curriculum at Hogwarts is designed to teach those with magical > ability. jferer wrote: > Good point, but there's a lot of holes in our knowledge of education > in the wizard world. We've been told by JKR that Hogwarts is the only > magical school in the UK, yet estimates of the number of students > ranges from 300-1000. My daughters' elementary school has 460 > students; it's one of eleven such schools in a town of 60,000 people. > Work it out, the wizarding population is small, small, small. > > If Hogwarts wasn't the only magical school, the problem would go > away, but we've seen no evidence of it, and JKR denied it. There is a third posibility, that was first thought of as a way to tie JKR's 1000 students figure with the 300 students figure the book gives, but that it's very logical if you think about it for a while: distributed campuses. According to this theory, there is only one "Hogwarts school", but, to prevent muggles from noticing a magic school, it has been divided in a series of campuses that have been distributed all over the British Islands. With this theory, that fits rather nicely with the International Statute of Wizarding Secrecy act, the Hogwarts we know would be an "elite" place, where only the most apt students would go (to explain Crabbe, Goyle and Longbottom, we could also include a family-preasure into the equation: important families that have lots of money or potential -like the son of aurors- can also have their children admitted). One of the other campuses would have a special section for squibs (the lowest ranking in the power level), where they would be taught how to survive in a wizard world without powers. Karen also asked: > Also, does anyone have any idea what the rate for sqib births > are in comparison to births of children with magical ability? Are > sqibs rare or fairly commonplace?" To which jferer answered: > They are commonplace enough that there's a business ("Kwikspell") > that caters to their desire to fit in to the rest of wizard society. They cannot be that common, and they are definetely more uncommon than wizard and witches from muggle families. Note that "Kwikspell" is not oriented at squibs, but at people who are not good with spells (unless there is a section for prestidigitation). A squib is basically a muggle, and no amount of correspondence courses will wake any sort of magic in him or her. That adds to the fact that I would take that course with a grain of salt, since my experience is that those sort of courses don't normally work (like "five kg in five days, and such, complete with people you don't know talking about how it did work for them). > And what are Stan Shunpike and Ernie Prang from the Knight Bus? > Squibs or something else? Can you picture them as Hogwarts students? They might have been students, only from one of the lesser campuses, with little or no magical power to speak off, but enough to get a job in the magical world. Hope that helps, Grey Wolf, who borrowed the "several campuses theory" from Catlady de los Angeles, and who hopes he got nothing wrong with it. From flower_fairy12 at yahoo.co.uk Sun Aug 4 17:40:03 2002 From: flower_fairy12 at yahoo.co.uk (flower_fairy12) Date: Sun, 04 Aug 2002 17:40:03 -0000 Subject: Where are sqibs schooled? In-Reply-To: <001301c23bcb$4ca6b9b0$6501a8c0@dedanaan> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42105 karen mcvicker wrote: > What I was wondering is, where are the Wizarding children who turn out to be > squibs educated? Are they educated at all and if so, what are they taught? > I'm asking because it seems that the curriculum at Hogwarts is designed to > teach those with magical ability. I think it's the same sort of question as "where do the kids get taught before Hogwarts?" Possibly at home, or there may be a small school just for the Squibs. They may be able to take part in a *few* classes at hogwarts, like potions, but then they wouldn't travel all that way everyday for one lesson would they? Or maybe they can go to a muggle school and learn magic in their spare time and in the summer holidays. *Rosie* :D From abigailnus at yahoo.com Sun Aug 4 18:03:52 2002 From: abigailnus at yahoo.com (abigailnus) Date: Sun, 04 Aug 2002 18:03:52 -0000 Subject: The Ancient Magic Witch theory, the fight back In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42106 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "grey_wolf_c" wrote: > Still Richelle: > > So if she did indeed know this ancient > > magic that just maybe Harry could be spared if she sacrificed herself > > than she did do something. But if she didn't know, I guess she was > > willing to sacrifice herself to allow her baby a few more seconds of > > life. Which would be the greatest sacrifice of all if she allowed > > herself to die not truly believing it would save him. Perhaps that is > > the ancient magic? A love so truly unselfish that you would die to > > allow another to live only seconds longer? > > I don't see things that way, although I know several people have > expressed that the greatest sacrifice is the one that gives a baby a > few more seconds of life. I don't see how that's courageous, I just > find it useless (please don't be offended, I do respect your belief, > even if I don't understand it). From *my point of view*, sacrificing > yourself for the sake of a few seconds, in fact, serves no purpose: a > baby cannot survive anyway, especially if your sacrifice does not stop > the danger, as in this case. What if it's exactly the uselessness of Lily's sacrifice that protects Harry? Lily is presented with a choice with regards to her life alone - Harry's fate is already decided. Whether she lives or dies makes no difference as far as he is concerned, and yet she chooses to die rather than leave him - knowing that it is a useless gesture (at least in the pragmatic, save-my-baby sense), because the other option is simply unthinkable to her, as I would suspect it would be to most parents (and the reason that no other parent ever made this choice is simply that Voldemort wasn't exactly in the habit of offering the relatives of his victims their lives - which leads us to the very interesting question of why he chose to make the exception in Lily's case.) This gesture is motivated by pure love, not self-interest or any other purpose - Lily doesn't think it will save Harry's life, and this love is deep enough to repel Voldemort's AK curse. kangasboy wrote: >I always interpreted the "ancient magic" alluded to in HP as > referring to the most basic primeval forces from which all magic >stems. Ancient magic could be connected to power of the Heir of >Slytherin (and any other heirs out there), plus it could be >responsible for magical abilities that cannot be learnt (eg >Divination). I believe it to be "pure" magic, in that it is >incorruptible; which is why Voldemort can't use it, and has been >thwarted by it. That's pretty close to my understanding of the phrase "ancient magic", but I thought of it more in the Narnia, ancient magic from before the dawn of time sense - the underlying rules of magic which no force, however powerful, can overcome. Like the magical laws of physics - magic and electricity don't mix, an animagus can only turn into one animal, and sacrificing yourself for someone leaves a magical mark on them. I think Voldemort's failure to remember this basic principle kind of makes sense - he's mastered such advanced magic that maybe he no longer thinks about the basic bulding block of how magic works. Abigail From rvotaw at i-55.com Sun Aug 4 19:53:34 2002 From: rvotaw at i-55.com (Richelle Votaw) Date: Sun, 4 Aug 2002 14:53:34 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Harry saved from AK by his mother References: Message-ID: <026601c23bf0$9e8b14e0$559dcdd1@istu757> No: HPFGUIDX 42107 bboy_mn writes (in response to the question Why was Voldemort's touch so painful to Harry?) > The only time I am aware of that Voldemort made physical contact with > Harry is in the graveyard when Voldemort regains his body. My guess is > the pain in his scar, was simply a result of Voldemort being in such > close proximity. It wasn't specifically the touch; although how much Don't forget about Quirrell's touch in SS/PS. The only reason that Quirrell couldn't touch Harry was because Voldemort was possessing his body (living in his body, whatever you call it). All the while Harry was hanging on to Quirrell to keep him in pain so he couldn't curse him Harry's scar felt like it was spliting open and he was blinded with pain. Richelle From Edblanning at aol.com Sun Aug 4 20:18:26 2002 From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com) Date: Sun, 4 Aug 2002 16:18:26 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Ireland and Seamus Message-ID: <83.1e9b5d3e.2a7ee612@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 42108 WvB: > I've noticed that in GF when Harry talks to Charlie about Quidditch World > Cup four teams are mentioned: England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland. > Moreover, QTTA says that British and Irish teams play in the same League. > > So far I've seen two explanations: > > a) in the Wizarding World Ireland is still a part of the UK > > b) Ireland and the UK have common culture and common history, thatswhy the > teams are playing in the same League (like NBA qnd NHL). Moreover, Northern > Ireland is a part of Ireland, as it is never mentioned as a separate entity. > I suspect that JKR is in part drawing an analogy with Rugby Union. For many years, The Five Nations championship has been fought between England, Scotland, Wales, Ireland and France (it is now the Six Nations and includes Italy). The Irish team is drawn from the whole of Ireland, Northern Ireland as well as Eire. I have mislaid my copy of QTTA, but I am sure that Quidditch is much older than the UK and that Muggle politics would have little influence on how Wizards organised their sport. Hence they might well play in the same league. WbV: > > Related question considers Seamus Finnegan. He is Irish but he studies in > Hogwarts. Does it mean that there are no equivalents in Ireland? If there > is a wizarding school in Ireland, why does he study in Hogwarts? Is he from > Nothern Ireland? Does it mean that he (or his parents) might have had > personal reasons for opting for Hogwarts? Many Irish people or people of Irish descent live in mainland Britain, though still maintaining strong cultural and family ties with Ireland. However I think the explanation more probably is that Hogwarts is *the* (either the only, or the best - pick your interpretation) wizarding school for the British Isles. After all, the foundation of Hogwarts (and presumably of the other major schools) predates the concept of Britain or the UK in any modern political sense. Eloise Back from a wonderful couple of weeks in the US, savouring the differences between our two cultures, proudly able (thanks to you guys) to explain to the rest of her family what a Smores flavour granola bar is supposed to represent and having witnessed the most outrageously tacky flock of pink flamingos imaginable outside a house in Brewster, Cape Cod, of all places. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From catlady at wicca.net Sun Aug 4 22:14:01 2002 From: catlady at wicca.net (catlady_de_los_angeles) Date: Sun, 04 Aug 2002 22:14:01 -0000 Subject: Squibs Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42109 Karen de Danaan wrote: << Also, does anyone have any idea what the rate for sqib births are in comparison to births of children with magical ability? Are sqibs rare or fairly commonplace? >> In CoS, Ron explained to Harry: ""A Squib is someone who was born into a wizarding family but hasn't got any magic powers. Kind of the opposite of Muggle-born wizards, but Squibs are quite unusual." My post #41509 offers a theory of inheritance of magic which explains Squibs and predicts an increase of Squibs in the classes younger than Ginny's. Jim Ferer wrote: << We've been told by JKR that Hogwarts is the only magical school in the UK, yet estimates of the number of students ranges from 300-1000. My daughters' elementary school has 460 students; it's one of eleven such schools in a town of 60,000 people. >> 5060 students (K thru 6 = 7 years, some as Hogwarts?) / 60,000 population ::: 1000 students = 12,000-odd population. Wizarding folk live twice as long as Muggles ::: 24,000 population. Larger than the 20,000 I estimated, based on how many people are needed to have all those shops and businesses. From pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk Sun Aug 4 23:09:33 2002 From: pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk (bluesqueak) Date: Sun, 04 Aug 2002 23:09:33 -0000 Subject: TBAY: Another Snape/Lily Person! Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42110 The good ship LOLLIPOPS (Love of Lily Left Ire Polluting Our Poor Severus) rides at anchor on the bay. Amanda has just finished welcoming Olivia to the ship, Offering her an outside cabin. Pippin is on the deck, in vampire mode,and Darrin and Pip!Squeak are relaxing in deckchairs. Amanda comments "Anyway, for all you people who've ever said "eeeurgh! Snape and Lily! Bleah!Greasy hair! Liked curses! Had she no taste??? I just can't *see* themtogether!" etc. ----> Neither Can I. I don't think anything intimate at all went on, other than Snape going out on a limb and baring a bit of his soulto her. And I think she was probably gracious enough to let him down as easily as that sort of man (boy) can be. No kissing. No bushes. Just love." Pippin replied, "I can see your point, but what if Lily wasn't always the Gryffindor Goddess everyone remembers? She could have gone through one of those awkward ugly duckling phases. Lots of girls do, you know. She and Snape could have been very close for a while. Then, you know how it is, one September Lily comes back and the braces have gone, the awkwardness is just a memory, the spots have cleared up ...whatever. The Gryffindor boys who've been ignoring her take notice. It occurs to Lily that life has more to offer than Severus Snape. "Wait a moment", Pip!Squeak says. "We all tend to see Snape at school as a junior version of Professor Snape - encouraged by Sirius's description of him in GoF as a 'slimy, oily, greasy haired kid' [GoF p.460, UK hardback].But Sirius Black isn't exactly the world's most unbiased witness where Snape's concerned (as I pointed out in post #42459). We don't really know what Snape was like at school. As a MAGIC DISHWASHER adherent I think that we don't really know what Snape is like at all, apart from those rare glimpses when he thinks Harry isn't watching him." "Yeah, well," says Darrin, "OK, if Snape-Lily must be, allow me to cast my vote with the unrequited love theory rather than any kind of love triangle where Lily chose James over Snape. As Amanda point's out, it's not really a tough choice, is it?" "But that's another assumption." says Pip!Squeak."Face it, a large proportion of the adult female readership of HP find themselves strangely attracted to Snape. Why couldn't Lily have been attracted to him? She went for the short, scruffy haired,glasses wearing James over the good looking Sirius, so she could probably see beyond whether someone was good looking or not. And if she looked beyond the greasy hair: Snape's brave [he faces down Sirius in the Shack in PoA Chapter 19; he argued with Quirrel, he spied on Voldemort, which is pretty high on the 'get found out and you'll live exactly as long as it's fun to torture you' stakes]. He's intelligent enough to design the logic puzzle in PS/SS . He's perceptive - look at the number of scenes where he guesses correctly that Harry's there in his cloak (Egg and the Eye in GoF, for one).Oh, and he's witty." [ Memo to budding writers - if you wish to create a genuinely unpopular character, never have him showing a witty and poetic nature in his first big scene (PS/SS p.102 UK paperback). Readers of novels are generally people who love language. A significant section of them will find anyone who plays with language the way Snape does to be VERY attractive. After such an introduction a character's tendency to mentally torture small children and to think that washing greasy hair once a week is perfectly adequate will be brushed aside as just minor foibles.] Snape's sarcasm,if carried back into a more innocent time, could well have been very funny -somehow you can imagine the child Snape being the kid who makes genuinely witty comments about the teachers (Imaginary SnapeComment: Professor Binns teaches history about dead and gone people.He's dead, but has anyone told him he's supposed to be gone?)" Darrin, Pippin and Amanda all look doubtfully at Pip!Squeak. Finally Darrin voices what they all seem to be feeling. "Are you trying to say that Student!Snape was the *Class Clown*!" There is a thoughtful pause while all four contemplate this vision. Then Pip!Squeak shakes her head. "No. No, I don't think even I can manage that one. But you can imagine him making the same sort of sarcastic comments about the teachers that he now makes about the students. Which people might well have admired. There's some evidence of that in canon - Professor McGonagall seems to have a teasing relationship with him about the Gryffindor/Slytherin rivalry; the other teachers support Snape when he attacks Lockhart in CoS (pp. 217 - 218 UK paperback) "Hmm..."says Amanda. "For the record, my own personal theory is that Snape did indeed love Lily. That said, I don't for a minute think they were *ever* an "item," or were ever "involved." I think he either simply loved her and never said anything (I *said* I was a romantic, so sue me), or he did tell her and she let him down easy. I tend to favor the latter--it would add fuel to his hatred of James (which I think was already in place) when James *did* win her. I think Snape is the sort to sublimate, and would do just that, sublimating all the negative emotions of rejection off onto James, leaving Lily still as someone loved (albeit unattainable)." Pip!Squeak shrugged. "I agree; I don't think Lily ever was in love with Snape, - but is there any real reason she couldn't have been friendly with him? We're reading things back into the past that might not be the case - assuming that the Maurauders - Snape rivalry was a Slytherin/Griffyndor thing; assuming that no Gryffindors were friendly with any Slytherins - and there is no actual canon to support that. I think it is extremely significant that while JKR has spent two whole books dealing with James's friends, she has told us absolutely nothing about Lily's friends. Why is NO ONE mentioning who Lily liked at school? Because Harry's godfather isn't going to mention it - it's embarrassing to explain that you came close to accidentally killing the friend of your godson's mother,or that you still have an intense dislike of someone that Lily liked and trusted. McGonagall isn't likely to mention it - she's Dumbledore's right hand person; if, as DISHWASHER posits(post #39273) Snape's apparent hatred of Harry is a cover story then she's not going to risk Harry asking awkward questions along the lines of 'if my mother liked him, is he as bad as he seems?'. And Snape himself is most definitely not mentioning it. What canon says is a negative - Snape never ever mentions Lily (at least, I can't remember a time when he does.) This is probably the reasoning behind LOLLIPOPS. Other characters who knew both Harry's parents refer to *both* of them in a natural, casual manner. Lupin "Your parents gave their lives to keep you alive..." [POA p.213, UK hardback]. Snape significantly always refers to Harry's *father* and never mentions his mother. If he regarded her as beneath his notice, you'd think he would have used it against Harry ('the famous Harry Potter; whose mother, of course, was a complete nonentity'). But he doesn't. He says nothing about Lily at all, never mentions that Harry *had* a mother - and the LOLLIPOPS have picked up on this, and concluded that Snape never mentions Lily because it is simply too painful." "Yeah,"says Darrin, "but that's the whole problem for me. I dislike the Snape-Lily thing because of the inherent soap- operaish quality, not because of any objection to Snape, but I do agree it makes sense." "Does it have to have a soap-operaish quality?" says Pip!Squeak. "Give you an example. One of the few things we know about Lily is that the wand that picked her was good for charm work [PS/SS p. 63] - and Snape, judging by his comments on 'foolish wand waving', didn't find charms his favourite subject.[Though as I pointed out in post #39662 , he is extremely competent at 'foolish wand waving']. Did he and Lily have a friendship that started as a homework alliance? 'You help me with my charms homework and I'll get you through potions?' Lily and Snape as friends explains a *lot* about You Know What. Why James would risk his life for someone he disliked, why Snape was trying to get the Maurauders into trouble, why Sirius disliked Snape so intensely... it's not soap opera if Snape (as Lily's old friend) was a serious contender,and they're all fighting over a girl they have a real chance of winning. It's realistic. And it solves the characterisation problem of why this unrequited love didn't turn into bitterness against Lily when Lily goes and marries the hated James. Because the underlying friendship was too longstanding on both sides to be destroyed." And then, of course,"said Amanda thoughtfully, "this added fuel to his hatred of James (which I think was already in place) when James *did* win her. I think Snape is the sort to sublimate, and would do just that, sublimating all the negative emotions of rejection off onto James, leaving Lily still as someone loved (albeit unattainable)." "Look," says Darrin, "For me, what made Snape turn is one of the most intriguing questions in the series." "For me, I wonder about a technical problem." said Pip!Squeak, grinning." How did Snape ever manage to get to Dumbledore to tell him he wanted to spy for him? Dumbledore was Voldemort's biggest enemy. Unless Snape was already a teacher at Hogwarts.." "He's a lousy teacher " Darrin breaks in. "And he *hates* teaching - why would he pick it as a career?" "So he probably wasn't teaching during the Voldemort years." replied Pip!Squeak. "And any DE seen with Dumbeldore was going to be in big trouble. And the fallout from You Know What suggests that Snape felt pretty resentful about Dumbledore's lenient treatment of Sirius Black ("Sirius Black showed he was capable of murder at the age of sixteen, Headmaster. You haven't forgotten that, Headmaster? You haven't forgotten that he once tried to kill me?) PoA p.286. So going to Dumbledore has certain problems. Being seen with him is dangerous, and Snape has little real reason to trust him. He can't go to his old Slytherin friends, because nearly all of them are Death Eaters (and the Death Eaters Anonymous meetings means he can't be completely certain who is and who isn't a DE). Lily as an old friend, however.... Lily is muggle born. She's unlikely in the extreme to be a Death Eater. The Death Eater's haven't gone public at this point, and if Snape meets someone he's known to have been friends with at school, (in Diagon Alley, say) nobody's going to think twice if he has a short chat with her. He could even set up a discreet private meeting with her. If someone finds out, well, Voldemort doesn't seem to think much of women anyway. Pippin snorts. "And did he have a plan B? According to you, *everyone* has a plan B." Pip!Squeak grins evilly. "Well, in real desperation, Snape could always tell Voldemort he and Lily were having a little affair. And if he did then pour out his heart to her, tell her that he was in it up to his neck with the DE's and wanted out, out OUT - and then instead of screaming in horror, or calling the aurors Lily tells him that she's working for Dumbledore and if he really wants to fight Voldemort she could find a way for him to do it... if it was LILY who had gone to Dumbledore and persuaded him to trust Snape and take him on as a spy ... It moves it away from Snape being still not over an unrequited teenage love affair. Instead He's still not over someone who he owed his - well, not his life, exactly, but his self respect. If he's got a place fighting on the side of the good guys then it was Lily who got him that chance at redemption. And she's dead. Not some imaginary love affair that took place in his head, but a real memory of a real friend, who he probably did love." Amanda nods thoughtfully. " According to my personal theory, Snape *was* the spy who tipped off Dumbledore and the Potters that Voldemort was after them. I also think that Voldemort knew that Snape might like it if Lily survived; I think Snape is the sort of personality that *would* have asked Voldemort for her, to save her at least, of all of them (sort of the way the captain of the boat tried to save Indy's girlfriend in Raiders of the Lost Ark? speaking Voldemort's language, asking for her as a reward or something...). This, to me, is a good reason that Snape may be the DeathEater that Voldemort believes is gone forever, the one who will be killed. BecauseVoldemort knows he transgressed Snape's personal code and murdered someone Snape loved, and knows Snape well enough to know he wouldn't forgive that." "Yes," says Darrin, "but why wouldn't he be a lot happier to see Harry so he can finally do something useful for Lily's memory? And *please* don't give me the MAGIC DISHWASHER 'it's all an act by Snape' answer." "Well, whether it's an act or not," said Pip!Squeak, "we do then have a reason for Snape to feel deeply ambivalent about Harry Potter. Harry is the son of both the person who Snape disliked and hated , and the son of the person who trusted him when he most needed it. And trust is important to Snape. He's a naturally suspicious person who finds it hard to trust people. That someone values him enough to trust him is important to him." "I also think it's pure torture for Snape to see Harry, who looks so much like James, but has Lily's eyes." says Amanda." I think it plays havoc with his sublimation game and dredges up emotions he'd thought buried for years--both positive and negative--and is making him even more unpleasant to be around. He seems a logical sort, and the irrationality of his reactions to Harry and Harry's friends seems to be rooted in something deeper than simple schoolboy rivalry. There is a primal, blind element to it. There had to be some stronger emotions in there." "I agree." says Pip!Squeak. "But not some love affair that ended when he was a teenager. Not some crush that he never even admitted. Nope, 'he loved her' is fine, but when Lily said she wanted to still be friends she meant it. The whole Snape/Lily thing is a lot deeper and longer lasting than a long lost crush." "But," says Pippin, "I still say there is no mutual exclusion between Snape is a Vampire and Snape Loved Lily. " Pip!Squeak shuffled her feet in embarrassment. 'Snape is a half-vampire' is a theory she could live with, except: "Well, we've got a half-giant teacher, a werewolf ex-teacher, a teacher who looks suspiciously like he might be half-goblin [Flitwick] - if Snape's a vampire it's going to look like JKR's trying to tell kids that teachers aren't really human. ;-) Pip Magic Dishwasher - see posts 39662 for the original, 39854 for Grey Wolf's summary, and 40044 for the Spying Game Part II. But reserve a spare day for reading all the replies - there's over a hundred! From jferer at yahoo.com Mon Aug 5 01:02:09 2002 From: jferer at yahoo.com (jferer) Date: Mon, 05 Aug 2002 01:02:09 -0000 Subject: Where are sqibs schooled? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42111 Grey Wolf:"There is a third posibility, that was first thought of as a way to tie JKR's 1000 students figure with the 300 students figure the book gives, but that it's very logical if you think about it for a while: distributed campuses. According to this theory, there is only one "Hogwarts school", but, to prevent muggles from noticing a magic school, it has been divided in a series of campuses that have been distributed all over the British Islands." The books do not, repeat not, give the 300 student figure anywhere. Those who propound a higher number can find some support for that, just as 300-student supporters find support in canon. (Sounds like Biblical debate, doesn't it?) And there isn't anything to suggest there are any other campuses anywhere. On the contrary, JKR has said Hogwarts is the only magical school in Britain. I don't think that leaves room for a multi-campus school system. It would be a little like saying that the University of California [system] is one school. We have heard from Hermione how Hogwarts itself is hidden. To me, the most fascinating thing to do in the Potterverse is to figure out how the wizarding world and its society works, and you can't do that by just making something up. The place to do that is in fic, which, like good science fiction, lets you take out a world and experiment with it. I didn't mean to suggest that there are a lot of squibs in the wizard world, just that there are enough that someone pays attention to them. Stan Shunpike and Ernie Prang actually do need some magical ability to make the Knight Bus run, so they really can't be complete squibs. I think we're just forced admit there's a lot about wizard society we don't know. From lizbooks at eircom.net Sun Aug 4 23:05:26 2002 From: lizbooks at eircom.net (alexmalone2002) Date: Sun, 04 Aug 2002 23:05:26 -0000 Subject: Unknown animagi Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42112 Which do you think, if any, of the pets/animals in the HP series are really animagi that have not shown their true selves yet? From gandharvika at hotmail.com Mon Aug 5 00:11:35 2002 From: gandharvika at hotmail.com (Gail Bohacek) Date: Mon, 05 Aug 2002 00:11:35 +0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Why Dumbledore trusts Snape -- a theory Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42113 Adia said: >My theory is that Snape proved himself to Dumbledore >before he ever became a spy. That is, I think, Snape >once saved Dumbledore's life. >'Dumbledore held Harry's gaze for a few seconds, and >then said, "That, Harry, is a matter between Professor >Snape and myself." ' > >He says this after we learn that Snape was a spy. So >Dumbledore is implying that there is a deeper reason >why he trusts Snape than that. Also, Dumbledore's >phrasing makes whatever he's implying seem very >personal. And I say: My personal pet theory is just the opposite...that Dumbledore saved Snape's life when he was still a Death Eater...that having a life-debt to Dumbledore wouldn't allow Snape to work for Voldemort any longer: therefore he started to work for Dumbledore's side as a spy. >Perhaps Dumbledore's desire to repay >Snape is the reason he is teaching at Hogwarts in the >first place? I was thinking that the reason why Snape was working at Hogwarts was that it was one of the only havens that Lord Voldemort could not break into, and being a turn-coat, Snape needed someplace to be safe. >Ah, I'm speculating on speculation now, but I can't >help it! If my theory really *is* the reason >Dumbledore trusts Snape so explicitly, then it has >marvellous implications for Snape's character (I'm a >Non-Evil!Snape fan) and it opens a window into >Dumbledore and Snape's relationship. Ditto, all the way around. -Gail B. _________________________________________________________________ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx From jferer at yahoo.com Mon Aug 5 01:09:38 2002 From: jferer at yahoo.com (jferer) Date: Mon, 05 Aug 2002 01:09:38 -0000 Subject: Unknown animagi In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42114 Alex:"Which do you think, if any, of the pets/animals in the HP series are really animagi that have not shown their true selves yet?" The only one that comes to mind is Crookshanks, who we may find out is something altogether different. There's no particular reason to think Hedwig or Pigwidgeon are or aren't animagi. The real twist would be reverse animagi, animals who can pretend to be people. From jferer at yahoo.com Mon Aug 5 01:23:12 2002 From: jferer at yahoo.com (jferer) Date: Mon, 05 Aug 2002 01:23:12 -0000 Subject: Squibs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42115 Catlady:"5060 students (K thru 6 = 7 years, some as Hogwarts?) / 60,000 population ::: 1000 students = 12,000-odd population. Wizarding folk live twice as long as Muggles ::: 24,000 population. Larger than the 20,000 I estimated, based on how many people are needed to have all those shops and businesses." That's right, K-6. If you had a much longer-lived population, how does the total population change? It won't necessarily double, as there's more time for accidental death, etc., among the adults, and reproduction rates could be different. So it easily could be your 20,000 instead of 24,000, and the numbers aren't very far apart anyway. A 20-24K population is still a small society, but you can start believing in wizard business, industry, and government at that level. Can't do it at, say, a population of 4,000. Is it possible, although there's no evidence for it, that lifespans vary more widely in the wizard world, depending on how much magic you have in you? We have to assume wizards are the same as us in terms of our bodies. If that is true, Filch can't expect to live a lot longer than we can, while Dumbledore can keep going and going...at least with respect to natural causes. From rvotaw at i-55.com Mon Aug 5 02:38:11 2002 From: rvotaw at i-55.com (Richelle Votaw) Date: Sun, 4 Aug 2002 21:38:11 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Harry's Putative Death References: Message-ID: <006501c23c29$25869d60$0c9ccdd1@istu757> No: HPFGUIDX 42116 bboy_mn writes: > So here's my plan- > For Voldemort to die, Harry has to die. The existance of either of > them guarantees the existence of the other. So, Harry makes the great > sacrifice and in a heroic battle with Voldemort; Voldermort kills him. > In the process Voldemort, once and for all time, destroys himself. > Dumbledore and Snape quickly rush in with all Harry's hand wringing > heartaching friends. A splash of potion, a wave of a wand, a few of > the last remaining drops of the Elixer of Life, and Harry groans, > opens his eyes, and says 'Ouch, that hurt! I'm hungry, anybody want to > grab a burger on the way back?" You know, the first time I read this, I thought "Yeah, right" decided it was too outlandish and went on with life. But then I've kept thinking about it all day. It's not actually as far out as I first thought. (Especially considering the series is in fact fictional and JKR can do anything she wants) A few thoughts on the idea that Voldemort could kill Harry and inadvertantly commit suicide by doing it, not understanding the connection between them. First, the Sorcerer's/Philosopher's Stone and Elixir of Life played a huge part in book one, but was destroyed and therefore never figures into the story line again. How odd is that? Most elements keep cropping up--dementors will be back I'm sure, the Phoenix, parseltongue, etc. But the SS/PS is destroyed period the end. Well, consider this. Nicolas Flamel and Dumbledore are supposed to be partners in alchemy, right? Obviously Nicolas Flamel created the SS/PS since he's several hundred years older than Dumbledore. Still, they have worked together, perhaps on its different uses. Anyway, Dumbledore says of Nicolas and his wife "They have enough Elixir stored to set their affairs in order." Which means that the Elixir can still exist after the stone was destroyed, only cannot be further produced. Could this in fact mean that Dumbledore also has some Elixir stored? Possibly to experiment with or perhaps for a "just in case" time should one ever arise. So I believe it is conceivable that Dumbledore could have a little Elixir hidden in that wondrous place of his. Next, JKR would be able to write the scene we all dread (Harry's death at the hands of Voldemort) and yet have him live a few pages later! We would plummet to the pits of despair and then rise like Phoenix from the ashes as our hero regains his life with a few precious drops of the Elixir (or something concocted out of it by our own dear Snape). Then Harry would have killed Voldemort not by his own hand but by his willingness to sacrifice himself (sound familiar?) and good will have triumphed once again. Not bad, not bad at all. > Although, the other persons idea where Harry wakes from a dream and > finds himself in the cupboard under the stair. Is pretty cool. > Especially, when he goes and checks the mail, and finds a letter from > Hogwarts, but then, that's another thread. Oh, yeah, that was me. The finding the letter after he wakes up from the dream part at least. But I like your idea better. Richelle From bard7696 at aol.com Mon Aug 5 02:58:49 2002 From: bard7696 at aol.com (darrin_burnett) Date: Mon, 05 Aug 2002 02:58:49 -0000 Subject: Harry's Putative Death In-Reply-To: <006501c23c29$25869d60$0c9ccdd1@istu757> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42117 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Richelle Votaw" wrote: Richelle wrote: Anyway, Dumbledore says of Nicolas and his wife "They have enough > Elixir stored to set their affairs in order." Which means that the Elixir > can still exist after the stone was destroyed, only cannot be further produced. Could this in fact mean that Dumbledore also has some Elixir stored? Possibly to experiment with or perhaps for a "just in case" time should one ever arise. So I believe it is conceivable that Dumbledore could have a little Elixir hidden in that wondrous place of his. > Does the Elixir actually resurrect? We know it extends life. We know it can heal someone on the edge of death or else Voldemort wouldn't have wanted it. But does it actually resurrect someone who is dead? If it does, great, but if it doesn't, then the theory doesn't work. Now, on to the theory itself. I realize that the popular sentiment will be to have Harry live, but I really don't want to see some grand sacrifice undone by a few drops of liquid. Either it's a sacrifice or it isn't. This is the same reason I don't like the theory about Snape or D-Dore or anyone else being behind the spell that saved Harry when he was a baby. It undercuts Lily's sacrifice. Considering the debate about the lack of strong female characters we had a while back, I would think critics of the female characters would not want to see one of the most powerful acts by a female character turn out to be the work of a man. Darrin -- The Hidden Elixir would be a great name for a band. From rvotaw at i-55.com Mon Aug 5 03:46:55 2002 From: rvotaw at i-55.com (Richelle Votaw) Date: Sun, 4 Aug 2002 22:46:55 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Harry's Putative Death/ female characters References: Message-ID: <000e01c23c32$cbfa3900$1a9ccdd1@istu757> No: HPFGUIDX 42118 Darrin wrote: > Does the Elixir actually resurrect? We know it extends life. We know > it can heal someone on the edge of death or else Voldemort wouldn't > have wanted it. > But does it actually resurrect someone who is dead? If it does, > great, but if it doesn't, then the theory doesn't work. Well, you never know. If Snape's really such a great potion master and Dumbledore has in fact had him working on something that could be it. > I realize that the popular sentiment will be to have Harry live, but > I really don't want to see some grand sacrifice undone by a few drops > of liquid. Either it's a sacrifice or it isn't. If Harry doesn't know anything about the Elixir (or whatever it is now that I've got Snape working on it) it will be a sacrifiice. If Harry truly belives with every fiber of his being that he is going to die so that Voldemort can be destroyed, whether Harry is resurrected afterwards will have no effect on the sacrifice Harry made. To use the Christian theology parallel for a moment, Jesus sacrificed himself on the cross to save mankind. He was resurrected three days later, but still that didn't take away from his sacrifice. Now back to Harry again, if Harry is willing to suffer and die believing it to be the only way, it won't change the sacrifice if he is resurrected. Take Ron at the chess game for example. For all he knew the Queen was going to stab him through the heart when she took him. Instead he's bashed over the head and in a little while he's fine. Does that take away from his sacrifice? Not at all. As long as the person doing is *willing* to give up their life it is still a sacrifice. > This is the same reason I don't like the theory about Snape or D-Dore > or anyone else being behind the spell that saved Harry when he was a > baby. It undercuts Lily's sacrifice. I agree there, I don't think anyone but Lily had anything to do with that. How much she really knew about it, I don't know, but I believe that she did it on her own. Whether she knew if it would really work or not is yet to be seen. It may have been she had it planned the whole time, since she found out Voldemort was after them, or maybe she was a bit like Hermione and remembered reading it somewhere and was willing to try. > Considering the debate about the lack of strong female characters we > had a while back, I would think critics of the female characters > would not want to see one of the most powerful acts by a female > character turn out to be the work of a man. Which brings up another point. However it ends up that Harry destroys Voldemort (and he's got to, whether he lives or dies!) I don't think it will be Sirius, Lupin, Snape or even Dumbledore that helps him figure out how to destroy Voldemort. I think it will be McGonagall. Why? For one thing, she's a prominent character who really hasn't done anything outstanding in books 1-4. She teaches, gets Harry out of trouble at times, takes points at times, etc. But nothing truly phenomenal. She deserves a big role somewhere. (And no, I don't think she's evil.) Second, a little mythology connection. Minerva, as I'm sure we all know, was the Roman goddess of war and wisdom. She communicated with owls. She also helped Perseus defeat Medusa by telling him how to go about it (look at the reflection, not directly at her). An interesting parallel would have our Minerva McGonagall telling Harry how to defeat Voldemort. Richelle From mcandrew at bigpond.com Mon Aug 5 04:11:05 2002 From: mcandrew at bigpond.com (littlelama40) Date: Mon, 05 Aug 2002 04:11:05 -0000 Subject: Why Dumbledore trusts Snape -- another theory (short) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42119 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Gail Bohacek" wrote: >> > My personal pet theory is just the opposite...that Dumbledore saved Snape's life when he was still a Death Eater...that having a life- debt to Dumbledore wouldn't allow Snape to work for Voldemort any longer: therefore he started to work for Dumbledore's side as a spy. >> Hi.. Good theory (ANY theory involving Snape is good!) except it didn't work that way for James Potter.. he reportedly saved Snape's life while still at school, and we know how much gratitude that got him (& Harry). How about.. instead of saving Snape's life, Dumbledore saved his wizard credibility, rehabilitated his reputation, or allowed him to save face in some way. For a character as proud (& fearless) as Snape, that might actually earn more gratitude than saving his life? Lama From bard7696 at aol.com Mon Aug 5 04:22:48 2002 From: bard7696 at aol.com (darrin_burnett) Date: Mon, 05 Aug 2002 04:22:48 -0000 Subject: Harry's Putative Death/ female characters In-Reply-To: <000e01c23c32$cbfa3900$1a9ccdd1@istu757> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42120 Richelle wrote: > > If Harry doesn't know anything about the Elixir (or whatever it is now that > I've got Snape working on it) it will be a sacrifiice. If Harry truly > belives with every fiber of his being that he is going to die so that > Voldemort can be destroyed, whether Harry is resurrected afterwards will > have no effect on the sacrifice Harry made. To use the Christian theology > parallel for a moment, Jesus sacrificed himself on the cross to save > mankind. He was resurrected three days later, but still that didn't take > away from his sacrifice. Now back to Harry again, if Harry is willing to > suffer and die believing it to be the only way, it won't change the > sacrifice if he is resurrected. Take Ron at the chess game for example. For all he knew the Queen was going to stab him through the heart when she took him. Instead he's bashed over the head and in a little while he's fine. Does that take away from his sacrifice? Not at all. As long as the person doing is *willing* to give up their life it is still a sacrifice. > No, you're right. The sacrifice is just as meaningful. I put my objection badly. My objection is frankly, I think it's cheating a little bit. It would be like resurrecting Cedric Diggory right away. If Harry is meant to die facing Voldemort, then damn it, he should die. If he is meant to survive, then I'd rather he survive without any tricks like having him dead and resurrected. And for God's sake, I don't want him having a life-debt to Snape at the end. :) Darrin -- ANYONE but Snape From lee.farley at ntlworld.com Mon Aug 5 05:57:59 2002 From: lee.farley at ntlworld.com (LD) Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2002 06:57:59 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Unknown animagi In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c23c45$0decd4f0$32ec6bd5@mayhem> No: HPFGUIDX 42121 'jferer' wrote: >>The only one that comes to mind is Crookshanks, who we may find out is >>something altogether different. There's no particular reason to think >>Hedwig or Pigwidgeon are or aren't animagi. What about Trevor the toad? There has to be a reason he keeps escaping from Neville, and (hoping I'm not getting a severe case of celluloid-induced-madness) exactly HOW did he get lost on the Hogwarts Express only to be found safe and dry some time later at the castle? Could Trevor really be an Animagi that needed to get his briefing from Dumbledore first, or something altogether more sinister? Or perhaps we should consider the feline form of Mrs. Norris? There's something very fishy going on with that cat, not least of all the way it has such an unusual bond with Filch. Thinking about it, what kind of a name is "Mrs Norris" for a cat anyway? Surely if it was normal it would be dead by now? It seems as though Mrs Norris has been there for years.. How long do cats live ordinarily anyway? I'm sure there's a third pet that's been bugging me, but I can't for the life of me remember which one it is. But then, about ten minutes after I post this message I'll remember, like always ;) -LD (currently suffering from sleep deprivation) From pen at pensnest.co.uk Mon Aug 5 08:30:02 2002 From: pen at pensnest.co.uk (Julian Robinson) Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2002 09:30:02 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Unknown animagi In-Reply-To: <000001c23c45$0decd4f0$32ec6bd5@mayhem> Message-ID: <89626BF3-A84D-11D6-96A5-0030654DED6A@pensnest.co.uk> No: HPFGUIDX 42122 On Monday, August 5, 2002, at 06:57 , LD wrote: > Thinking about it, what kind of a > name is "Mrs Norris" for a cat anyway? A Jane Austen reference? 'Mrs Norris' is after all the perfect name for a spiteful, mean-spirited cat. Pen From lilac_bearry at yahoo.com Mon Aug 5 08:35:46 2002 From: lilac_bearry at yahoo.com (Lilac) Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2002 01:35:46 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Unknown Animagi Message-ID: <20020805083546.7312.qmail@web40304.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 42123 From: "alexmalone2002" Subject: Unknown animagi "Which do you think, if any, of the pets/animals in the HP series are really animagi that have not shown their true selves yet?" I used to think Crookshanks was, but I've read many theories on the interenet that he is actually a Kneazle or part-Kneazle, and I am leaning more toward that. The description from Fantastic Beasts says (pg 24-25): "...The Kneazle is intelligent, independent, and occasionally aggressive, though if it takes a liking to a witch or wizard, it makes an excellent pet. The Kneazle has an uncanny ability to detect unsavoury or suspicious characters (Me: Scabbers in POA) and can be relied upon to guide its owner safely home if they are lost....Kneazles are sufficiently unusual in appearance to attack muggle interest." Now, Mrs. Norris could be a Kneazle as well, but the "unsavoury or suspicious characters" are the students sneaking around at night. I wonder if Kneazles can see through invisibility cloaks?... But maybe she is an Anamagi that prefers her feline form because she can catch students better that way. Then there's Mrs. Figg with all her cats. Could the cats possibly be Animagi or Kneazles that are helping her watch over Harry, which is what we assume Arabella is doing living in Harry's neighborhood? Just a thought... Aha, just had a brain wave...what if Fawkes is an animagi who is actually Godric Gryffindor? Maybe he is permanantly in the phoenix state now so he could be around much longer than a mere mortal wizard? And, so he could deliver hats and sing phoenix songs on an as-needed basis? Lilac (who is wondering about the part "guide it's owner home if they are lost" and thinks it might be a bit of forshadowing about Hermione in one of the coming books if, in fact, Crookshanks *is* a Kneazle.) ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~ "Tut, tut --- hardly any of you remembered that my favorite color is *lilac*. I say so in Year with the Yeti." --Gilderoy Lockhart, COS --------------------------------- Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Mon Aug 5 09:06:08 2002 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (bboy_mn) Date: Mon, 05 Aug 2002 09:06:08 -0000 Subject: Harry's Putative Death In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42124 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "darrin_burnett" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Richelle Votaw" wrote: > Richelle wrote in responce to bboy_mn: > > > Anyway, Dumbledore says of Nicolas and his wife "They have enough > Elixir stored to set their affairs in order." Which means that the > Elixir can still exist after the stone was destroyed, only cannot > be further produced. Could this in fact mean that Dumbledore also > has some Elixir stored? Possibly to experiment with or perhaps for > a "just in case" time should one ever arise. So I believe it is > conceivable that Dumbledore could have a little Elixir hidden in that > wondrous place of his. > Darrin in reponce to Richelle: > > Does the Elixir actually resurrect? We know it extends life. We know > it can heal someone on the edge of death or else Voldemort wouldn't > have wanted it. > > But does it actually resurrect someone who is dead? If it does, > great, but if it doesn't, then the theory doesn't work. > > Now, on to the theory itself. > > I realize that the popular sentiment will be to have Harry live, but > I really don't want to see some grand sacrifice undone by a few drops > of liquid. Either it's a sacrifice or it isn't. > > This is the same reason I don't like the theory about Snape or D-Dore > or anyone else being behind the spell that saved Harry when he was a > baby. It undercuts Lily's sacrifice. > > Considering the debate about the lack of strong female characters we > had a while back, I would think critics of the female characters > would not want to see one of the most powerful acts by a female > character turn out to be the work of a man. > > Darrin > -- The Hidden Elixir would be a great name for a band. bboy_mn comments: This gets back to the statement that 'there is dying, then again there is dying. The two not necessarily being the same'. How dead is dead? How dead does Harry have to be for Voldemort to die? Or, how dead does Harry have to be for Voldemort to be vulnerable? People die all the time and are brought back to life. Again, that statement depends on how you define death. So it is possible for Harry to die by some definition, in a way that allows Voldemort to be destroyed. That is, as an unrealistic example, Dumbledore could paralyse Harry, paralysis = no heart/no lunds = dead. During this time, Voldemort might be extremely vulnerable. He get's killed, they wake Harry up, and all have a laugh over tea about how they played Voldemort for a fool. More realistic, we know Harry has some protection; special protection. My take on it is that is ability to survive a death curse lasted for about 30 seconds after his mother made the sacrific. Certainly, he carries some residual protection as we saw in the PS/SS. But let's remember that Harry came close to dying in the chamber with the Mirror of Erised. Dumbledore says he was afraid he might have been too late. Of course, he wasn't actually being hit with a death curse. The illustration is that he has residual protection, but is not immortal. I seriously doubt that Harry can go around letting people hit him with death curses at parties, just so he can entertain people by surviving. If he's hit with a death curse now, he's dead. So to my point, he still has some residual protection, and NOW we know the death curse can be protected against; it is survivable. So if Dumbledore, plans additional protection in advance, he may be able to prepare Harry to die (by some definition) from Voldemort's death curse, but have these advanced protections prevent him from dying irrevocably. For example, the Exlier of Life makes you immortal for as long as you take it. What if you take it before you step in front of a death curse? You are immortal and hit with a death curse. Which one wins; death or immortality? Perhaps they both win. Have you ever seen the 'Highlander', about a Scottish immortal Duncan McLoud? He dies all the time, and a few minutes later, his immortality kicks in and he wakes up. During the time he is dead, he is really dead, but he still comes back to life. So, I can foresee a circumstrance where through a calculated effort, Harry is allowed to die, in order to make Voldemort vulnerable to death, and then Harry is revived not by a miracle, but by calculated intent. Now they may not put all the pieces together until the seventh book, and I can concieve that it may be a deep secret. Harry may not even know about it. He may have tea with Dumbledore just before he faces Voldemort for that last time. The tea, unknown to Harry, containing the elixer of life. If it's a secret, that leaves room for other characters to sacrifice themselves for Harry, not knowing he is protected, although, by sacrificing themselves for love, they increase his protection. So I can come up with a lot of scenarios in which death and resurection can occur. Now that it has been pointed out, it does seem odd that something as important as the Elixer of Life and the Stone, dominated the first story and were never heard from again. On another related note, Flamel is 'getting his affairs in order'. To a 700 year old man, how long does it take. To Flamel, a decade is nothing in time. Ten years to Flamel is 1.5% of his lifetime; it's 12.5% of our lifetime. Flamel is still alive as far as I'm concerned and that means there is still Elixer of Life available. That's my story and I'm sticking to it! bboy_mn From textualsphinx2002 at yahoo.co.uk Mon Aug 5 09:23:50 2002 From: textualsphinx2002 at yahoo.co.uk (textualsphinx2002) Date: Mon, 05 Aug 2002 09:23:50 -0000 Subject: Another Snape/Lily person! Yaaay! was Snape and the Malfoys (was Re: Harry's Putative Death) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42125 Darrin (and others) 'If, according to one of the earlierst fanfic theories, Snape loved Lily (and really, it WOULD explain a lot - like the fact that he is quick to insult Harry's father but NEVER, EVER insults his 'parents' or his mother - and he would have known her, being in the same year) then yes, I imagine it would have been unrequited.' But why automatically assume that this is soap opera-ish? what makes something corny is not the story but the way it is told. There are a great many sappy Snape-Lily stories, but the problem's with the writing, not the idea. Romeo and Juliet would be soap opera by that rule. I am the proud author of a perfectly cruel, cold, bleak Snape-Lily fic (in which she never knows). It's called 'To Sever the Lining >From a Cloud' and can be found at Sugarquill and Schnoogle. It owes more to Oscar Wilde and Hans Andersen than to Rowling, and I kept the sap to a minimum by having having a heartless narrator. I like the idea of Snape preferring to live with his bitterness than learning to be happy. I think his suicide note would read 'Best subjects, Potions and Arithmancy; Worst subject, Life.' From oppen at cnsinternet.com Mon Aug 5 12:58:57 2002 From: oppen at cnsinternet.com (Eric Oppen) Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2002 07:58:57 -0500 Subject: Snape's Lost Love Message-ID: <00dd01c23c7f$dd113200$0e87aa41@hppav> No: HPFGUIDX 42126 An idea that's occured to me about Our Man Snape is that he may _be_ being mean to Harry because he's still not over a lost love---but that that lost love is _not_ Lily Evans. The scenario that came to my mind is roughly as follows: Snape, as a student, isn't too popular with his fellows---doesn't fit in, too studious, knows all those _na-sty_ curses, and a *looking around uneasily* _Slytherin._ The Marauders, at least James and Sirius, are pretty much the "alphas" in the student body---popular, academically successful, able to get away with murder (so to speak) and do not always handle their high status well. Lily is James' girlfriend, and pretty much the "queen bee" among the Hogwarts girl population---and she doesn't always handle her high status well, either. They're teenagers. However, although Snape isn't popular, he _does_ have a girlfriend. We'll call her "Jessica," just because I like the name. Snape and Jessica are always together, and he depends heavily on her for his emotional stability---she's the one person he feels he can trust. Unfortunately, James and Lily notice this, and decide to have some Fun. Lily pretends to befriend Jessica, and gets her to drop her boyfriend,so that she can "fit in better" with her "new crowd." Snape is heartbroken, and watches from the sidelines as Jessica begins palling around with the Marauders. Maybe James even pretends to be interested in her, (with Lily's connivance) to really rub it into Snape. Or Sirius Black starts dating her, and Snape has to watch as the girl _he_ still loves is swept off her feet by Sirius. And then the other shoe drops, and the Marauders' clique throws her out. Whether they explain that it was all just a good joke on her and Snape or not is moot. It's just that one day, she comes around, and is pretty much told "Welcome to Dumpsville--population, _you._" (I have seen this happen among teenagers, and it is Not Fun At All for the victim.) She's suddenly back to Pariah-land, after having thought that she'd finally been accepted by the In-Crowd, which is every outcast student's dream. Sobbing and embittered, she crawls back to Snape, who takes her back---and vows undying hatred to the Marauders, their friends, and all who love them Because They Treated Jessica Badly. He tries to get revenge, but it backfires (see discussions of "The Prank") and it embitters him even further, to the point where he (and Jessica?) are quite susceptible to the wiles of a DE recruiter and talent scout. So, when he meets James-and-Lily's son, it's hate at first sight because of a lost love---but that love is NOT Lily Evans! I know that this is going to shock some people, but I honestly think that James and Lily have acquired posthumous halos more for the way they died and because we see them through Harry's eyes, and that they may well have been flawed, fallible human beings---and could have gone through a period as teenagers where they were perfectly horrible to their less socially successful peers. The teachers may not have noticed (or have mellowed their opinions considerably since their heroic deaths). From rvotaw at i-55.com Mon Aug 5 13:19:28 2002 From: rvotaw at i-55.com (Richelle Votaw) Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2002 08:19:28 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Unknown animagi References: <000001c23c45$0decd4f0$32ec6bd5@mayhem> Message-ID: <007001c23c82$bb1f4940$07a2cdd1@istu757> No: HPFGUIDX 42127 LD writes: > What about Trevor the toad? There has to be a reason he keeps escaping > from Neville, and (hoping I'm not getting a severe case of > celluloid-induced-madness) exactly HOW did he get lost on the Hogwarts I've always wondered myself how that toad disappears so much. Yet he's even in class with Neville. And it was a gift from Neville's Great Uncle, the same one who dropped him out a window and discovered his hidden magical powers. There's always been something interesting to me about that man. Maybe he thought Neville needed someone else to keep an eye on him? LD again: > Or perhaps we should consider the feline form of Mrs. Norris? There's > something very fishy going on with that cat, not least of all the way it > has such an unusual bond with Filch. Thinking about it, what kind of a > name is "Mrs Norris" for a cat anyway? Surely if it was normal it would > be dead by now? It seems as though Mrs Norris has been there for years.. > How long do cats live ordinarily anyway? Cats can live upwards of twenty years, but they don't usually get around as easy as Mrs. Norris does. Hmm, suppose that Filch had a childhood sweetheart and she turned out to be a witch while he turned out to be a squid? Perhaps it would be beneath a true witch to fall in love with a squid. So she took on a cat form? Or maybe she's just a weird cat. :) Lilac writes: > I used to think Crookshanks was, but I've read many theories on the interenet that he is > actually a Kneazle or part-Kneazle, and I am leaning more toward that. The description from > Fantastic Beasts says (pg 24-25): > "...The Kneazle is intelligent, independent, and occasionally aggressive, though if it takes a > liking to a witch or wizard, it makes an excellent pet. The Kneazle has an uncanny ability to > detect unsavoury or suspicious characters (Me: Scabbers in POA) and can be relied upon > to guide its owner safely home if they are lost....Kneazles are sufficiently unusual in > appearance to attack muggle interest." I think Crookshanks is not a normal cat, whether a kneazle or animagi, I'm still not certain. Perhaps you're right with the "part-Kneazle" theory. Because the Fantastic Beast guide says it has "a tail like a lion." Crookshanks is described as having a "bottlebrush tail" which doesn't quite remind me of a lion's tail. The guide also says "Kneazles have up to eight kittens in a littler and can interbreed with cats." Hmm, how about that? So it is possible to produce a half cat-half kneazle creature, which may well be Crookshanks. Richelle From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Mon Aug 5 13:32:47 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Mon, 05 Aug 2002 13:32:47 -0000 Subject: The Ancient Magic Witch theory, the fight back In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42128 Abigail wrote: > What if it's exactly the uselessness of Lily's sacrifice that > protects Harry? Lily is presented with a choice with regards to her > life alone - Harry's fate is already decided. Whether she lives or > dies makes no difference as far as he is concerned, and yet she > chooses to die rather than leave him - knowing that it is a useless > gesture (at least in the pragmatic, save-my-baby sense), because the > other option is simply unthinkable to her, as I would suspect it > would be to most parents (and the reason that no other parent ever > made this choice is simply that Voldemort wasn't exactly in the habit > of offering the relatives of his victims their lives - which leads us > to the very interesting question of why he chose to make the > exception in Lily's case.) This gesture is motivated by pure love, > not self-interest or any other purpose - Lily doesn't think it will > save Harry's life, and this love is deep enough to repel Voldemort's > AK curse. I resist to believe this position, and I think I've made my reasons clear enough to go through them again. I don't think it's as simple as that because then more people would be carrying around the love shield, and at least someone would have survived the AK before. We are talking of no occurences in some 4000 years of magical history, which is a long time for someone not to have sacrified his/her live for a loved one even when it wasn't going to help. Anyway, you want a gesture motivated by "pure love, not self-interest or any other purpose", and my version gives you that: the ancient magic spell Lily uses *requires* to lay the caster's life for love of the recipient. The spell will not work if there is self-interest (but someone tainted by self-interest would not use it anyway, since if he utters the spell, his/her life will be finished, no matter the outcome, and a selfish-oriented person wouldn't do that). You also mention "other purposes". I can't imagine what other purposes would induce Lily to use the spell: only the most absolute love for her baby would make her renounce to the slight possibility of salvation Voldemort is offering in exchange for the wild possibility that a spell that hasn't been used in recorded history will work. Desperation would not take her to this extreme, nor histerics, nor any other purpose I can think of. As I've said, I don't understand what's so great about laying down one's life when it's not going to have any impact on reality (i.e. it's not going to increase the chances of Harry's survival), but I CAN understand using a spell that will kill you as a part of it's activation cost if that way a loved person will survive. > kangasboy wrote: > > >I always interpreted the "ancient magic" alluded to in HP as > > referring to the most basic primeval forces from which all magic > >stems. Ancient magic could be connected to power of the Heir of > >Slytherin (and any other heirs out there), plus it could be > >responsible for magical abilities that cannot be learnt (eg > >Divination). I believe it to be "pure" magic, in that it is > >incorruptible; which is why Voldemort can't use it, and has been > >thwarted by it. > > That's pretty close to my understanding of the phrase "ancient > magic", but I thought of it more in the Narnia, ancient magic from > before the dawn of time sense - the underlying rules of magic which > no force, however powerful, can overcome. Like the magical laws of > physics - magic and electricity don't mix, an animagus can only turn > into one animal, and sacrificing yourself for someone leaves a > magical mark on them. I think Voldemort's failure to remember this > basic principle kind of makes sense - he's mastered such advanced > magic that maybe he no longer thinks about the basic bulding block of > how magic works. > > Abigail I think both you, Abigail, and Kangasboy are trying to play this hand with the cards of the previous. Nothing in JKR's HP series points towards an "elemental" magic of any sort. We've seen wandless magic, and subsconscious magic, but we've never witnessed elemental magic. I haven't read the Narmia series, but it seems that most of your arguments for this elemental magic are coming from some sort of magic displayed in those books. I'm not the one to criticise that (I've used examples from other books myself), but in this case I don't think there is a clear relation between them. Then again, your argument about Voldemort forgetting one of the principles of magic doesn't make any sense to me. As Ollivanders puts it, "he did great things -terrible, yes, but great". Like the scientist that invented the Atomic bomb, Voldemort is someone that knows magic inside and out, and I don't think he would forget something as basic as that. It would be like a cientist saying "blimey, I had forgotten that nothing can go faster than light" or "uuups! I had forgotten that if you manage to break the nuclei bonds (break the atom), all hell brakes loose". It just doesn't happen. I also dislike Kangasboy idea of "pure, incorruptible" elemental magic. It makes no sense: any elemental is, by definition, neutral: it cannot be "good" or "bad" in itself, just as "fire" or "water" or "hidrogen atom" are not good or bad /per se/. A morality can only be attached when used for good or bad things. If the essence of magic, the elemental magic, was "pure" and "incorruptible", the Dark magic could not exist, since there would be no building blocks to construct it out of. Thus, I am left with my original explanation: Ancient magic, just as the name suggests, is a sort of magic used a long time ago. Just like "ancient" technology was used a long time ago, but it's not anymore, this ancient magic must have, at some point in the past, been abandoned in favour of other sort of magic. The reasons why the magic was abandoned will depend on the sort of magic it is. I'd say it's too costly, it's got too many side effects, or there is a new magic that does the same, only better. We know of three ancient spells, the love shiled, the Dudley protection and the resurrection potion (an "old jewel"). The last one is the most doubtfull: we don't really know if it's "ancient" as the other two. But -and here I'm going into MAGIC DISHWASHER gear- let's asume it is. The first one -the love shield- is too costly (one life for another basis, with lots of subcosts: love, sacrifice, etc.), the second one we don't really know what's wrong with it, but it's altoghether possible that Dumbkedore paid a very big price to put it up (some suggest the playing with the put-outer has something to do with it), and the last one -according to MAGIC DISWASHER, I repeat- is fundamentaly flawed, and Voldemort will pay a big price for having used it (his entire existance, hopefully). Hope that helps, Grey Wolf From editor at texas.net Mon Aug 5 13:47:13 2002 From: editor at texas.net (Amanda Geist) Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2002 08:47:13 -0500 Subject: Crookshanks *is* a Kneazle, was Unknown animagi References: <000001c23c45$0decd4f0$32ec6bd5@mayhem> <007001c23c82$bb1f4940$07a2cdd1@istu757> Message-ID: <001d01c23c86$9bc5a220$8c7663d1@texas.net> No: HPFGUIDX 42129 > Lilac writes: > > > I used to think Crookshanks was, but I've read many theories on the > interenet that he is > > actually a Kneazle or part-Kneazle, and I am leaning more toward that. > The description from > > Fantastic Beasts says (pg 24-25): > > > "...The Kneazle is intelligent, independent, and occasionally aggressive, > though if it takes a > > liking to a witch or wizard, it makes an excellent pet. The Kneazle has > an uncanny ability to > > detect unsavoury or suspicious characters (Me: Scabbers in POA) and can > be relied upon > > to guide its owner safely home if they are lost....Kneazles are > sufficiently unusual in > > appearance to attack muggle interest." Richelle added: > I think Crookshanks is not a normal cat, whether a kneazle or animagi, I'm > still not certain. Perhaps you're right with the "part-Kneazle" theory. > Because the Fantastic Beast guide says it has "a tail like a lion." > Crookshanks is described as having a "bottlebrush tail" which doesn't quite > remind me of a lion's tail. The guide also says "Kneazles have up to eight > kittens in a littler and can interbreed with cats." Hmm, how about that? > So it is possible to produce a half cat-half kneazle creature, which may > well be Crookshanks. I now add: Crookshanks is indeed part-Kneazle. This has been confirmed by JKR in an interview. I'm not remembering which one, but I do remember listening to it over and over and over trying to make out through my less-than-sterling net audio whether she is saying "half" or "part" Kneazle. [*I* thought it was half, but the consensus of the list was that it was part.] The point is, we do know that Crookshanks is what you were suspecting. The interview was shortly after the publication of the schoolbooks, and she had been discussing how much she'd enjoyed putting them together, since it was pure creation without having to worry about plot intricacies, and because she had so much additional information that otherwise readers might never know. This would seem to confirm what many of us felt on reading the schoolbooks, that JKR was using them to give us some hints or additional helpful information (in addition, of course, to raising lots of money for charity, another worthy cause). I know that JKR has had inaccuracies in interviews (like James' team position), but this particular information about Crookshanks doesn't seem to be the sort of thing that can mutate like that. I think we can trust it. If I could remember at this hour of the morning where the interview record is, I'd find it for you, but I am *not* a morning person, my sons are, and I'm dealing with that personal burden right now..... I believe the schoolbooks are canon? Interviews, I think, technically aren't, but they *are* JKR information. However, the more-than-foot-stomper clues in the description of Kneazles, coupled with her bald confirmation of Crookshanks, doesn't seem open to argument, at least not to me. --Amanda From john_quinn86 at yahoo.co.uk Mon Aug 5 11:07:52 2002 From: john_quinn86 at yahoo.co.uk (john_quinn86) Date: Mon, 05 Aug 2002 11:07:52 -0000 Subject: Polyjuice and death? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42130 Hi, my name is John, and I'm new! I was thinking yesterday about the Polyjuice poition, and was wondering if it could *theoretcally* be used to become "immortal". By that I mean, before you die, you start to put your fingernails into different jars. When you die, a successor will make the potion drink it and continue the cycle. Thanks in advance, John "the fifth Marauder" Quinn From amelofbrockley at yahoo.com Mon Aug 5 14:29:19 2002 From: amelofbrockley at yahoo.com (amelofbrockley) Date: Mon, 05 Aug 2002 14:29:19 -0000 Subject: Unknown animagi In-Reply-To: <89626BF3-A84D-11D6-96A5-0030654DED6A@pensnest.co.uk> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42131 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Julian Robinson wrote: > > On Monday, August 5, 2002, at 06:57 , LD wrote: > > > Thinking about it, what kind of a > > name is "Mrs Norris" for a cat anyway? > > A Jane Austen reference? 'Mrs Norris' is after all the perfect name for > a spiteful, mean-spirited cat. > > Pen umm. Could it be that Mrs Norris is a dramatic device? Ms Rowling does seem to be good at putting in things just because they read well, and anyway, the strange power of ordinary cats is a classic fantasy trope cf. Greebo in the Discworld books. But then again, H.P. Lovecraft did posit that cats were in fact a benign and hyper- powerful race from the stars who protected mankind from various mis- formed nasties, because they happened to like us. SO, I reckon Mrs Norris could be the undercover hero of the cycle (what is it with authors and their cats?) "amelofbrockley" From huntleyl at mssm.org Mon Aug 5 16:43:28 2002 From: huntleyl at mssm.org (Laura Ingalls Huntley) Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2002 12:43:28 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Polyjuice and death? References: Message-ID: <002601c23c9f$3ade29a0$daccedd1@Huntley> No: HPFGUIDX 42132 John Quinn: >I was thinking yesterday about the Polyjuice poition, and >was wondering if it could *theoretcally* be used to become "immortal". >By that I mean, before you die, you start to put your fingernails >into different jars. When you die, a successor will make the potion >drink it and continue the cycle. That's more like cloning, isn't it? It'd be your body..but not *you*. On the other hand..I was just thinking..what if you kept alot of "clippings" of you (or some other younger person) when you were younger and took them when you were old? Your body would become young, right?? Therefore, you wouldn't die...at least not of old age. *frowns* It's all very confusing, isn't it? laura [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bard7696 at aol.com Mon Aug 5 17:37:24 2002 From: bard7696 at aol.com (darrin_burnett) Date: Mon, 05 Aug 2002 17:37:24 -0000 Subject: Polyjuice and death? In-Reply-To: <002601c23c9f$3ade29a0$daccedd1@Huntley> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42133 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Laura Ingalls Huntley" wrote: > John Quinn: > >I was thinking yesterday about the Polyjuice poition, and >was wondering if it could *theoretcally* be used to become "immortal". > >By that I mean, before you die, you start to put your fingernails > >into different jars. When you die, a successor will make the potion > >drink it and continue the cycle. > > That's more like cloning, isn't it? It'd be your body..but not *you*. > Wait a minute, polyjuice potion has to be taken every hour. Granted, a strand of hair will do, but 24 times a day, 365 days a year, and it won't be too long before there's not many bits left. A fingernail in a jar isn't going to cut it. And it is possible that the person you're intimidating has to be alive -- that the potion requires live tissue. Otherwise, why didn't Barty Jr. just kill Mad-Eye? Darrin -- Fingernails in a Jar... hmmmm... good band name From divaclv at aol.com Mon Aug 5 17:44:40 2002 From: divaclv at aol.com (c_voth312) Date: Mon, 05 Aug 2002 17:44:40 -0000 Subject: Harry's Putative Death In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42134 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "darrin_burnett" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Richelle Votaw" wrote: > Richelle wrote: > >> > Does the Elixir actually resurrect? We know it extends life. We know > it can heal someone on the edge of death or else Voldemort wouldn't > have wanted it. > > But does it actually resurrect someone who is dead? If it does, > great, but if it doesn't, then the theory doesn't work. In fact, Dumbledore says in GoF that no spell can ressurect the dead (or words to the effect). BUT...if we're going on the Harry-as- Christ-figure archetype, then that would seem to indicate a certain uniqueness about him, bringing the possibility of (to borrow an expression) boldly going where no wizard has gone before. After all, nobody is supposed to be able to survive an AK, either. ~Christi From johnryanmcc at yahoo.com Mon Aug 5 16:47:40 2002 From: johnryanmcc at yahoo.com (John McCutcheon) Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2002 09:47:40 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Polyjuice and death? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020805164740.39963.qmail@web21109.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 42135 --- john_quinn > Hi, my name is John, and I'm new! > > I was thinking yesterday about the Polyjuice > poition, and was > wondering if it could *theoretcally* be used to > become "immortal". > By that I mean, before you die, you start to put > your fingernails > into different jars. When you die, a successor will > make the potion > drink it and continue the cycle. Polyjuice potion only changes a person's form, not their minds or souls. Yes, there could be somebody who looked liked someone for ages after they died, but it wouldn't be that person. John __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better http://health.yahoo.com From bard7696 at aol.com Mon Aug 5 18:04:27 2002 From: bard7696 at aol.com (darrin_burnett) Date: Mon, 05 Aug 2002 18:04:27 -0000 Subject: Snape's Lost Love In-Reply-To: <00dd01c23c7f$dd113200$0e87aa41@hppav> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42136 Eric laid out his scenario, which I've snipped: > > I know that this is going to shock some people, but I honestly think that James and Lily have acquired posthumous halos more for the way they died and because we see them through Harry's eyes, and that they may well have been flawed, fallible human beings---and could have gone through a period as teenagers where they were perfectly horrible to their less socially successful peers. The teachers may not have noticed (or have mellowed their opinions considerably since their heroic deaths). And once more unto the breach I go: I can see why the Slytherins are such a comforting parallel to students who feel they are outcasts, or maybe were outcasts in school. Snape himself looks like he was a little Goth boy, listening to punk rock music, reading Anton LeVay, experimenting with darker magic and probably fiercely intelligent. And it's likely he didn't do too much to endear himself to anyone at school. But we do know Snape was friends with Slytherins. He ran with a gang of them, we're told. So, he wasn't a complete outcast. Which leads me to my next point. Snape is the only Slytherin (if that truly was his house) so far that fits the profile of an outcast. He's the only skateboarder, Goth, class brain, kid from the other side of the tracks who is picked on because of his or her wealth, etc... that we know was Slytherin. The lead Slytherin in the books is not some outcast from the wrong side of the tracks, but the son of a wealthy, connected man who could have gone to any school he wanted and who can buy his way onto the athletic squad. Draco isn't an outcast from the in-crowd. He IS the in-crowd. His father is rich and his family is well-known. Draco is the one who makes value judgements about Lupin based on the state of his clothes, and the Weasley family based on their financial troubles. He's the one who takes it upon himself to torture a shy and weak kid like Neville. And Crabbe and Goyle snicker along with everything he says. Tom Riddle, though a poor orphan, was popular at school, and even made Head Boy, something an outcast would turn down as being beneath him or her. And after he turned to the Dark Arts, he still had friends/followers. We are told he asked his fellow Slytherin to start calling him "Lord Voldemort" which means he had friendly relationships. Marcus Flint protects Draco, even after he drops the most vile racial slur the WW has on Hermione. As I've said before, protecting a racist soils your hands with the same dirty deed, in my opinion. And it is Pansy who see herself as the arbiter of good taste and beauty at Hogwarts, as determined by her catty comments about Hermione's looks and her complete shock when Hermione outdoes her at the Yule Ball. If anything, the scenario you lay out for Jessica would more likely happen to a girl like Hermione. The only reason Slytherin seems like an outcast is because they aren't in the HRH house. But in reality, just as many Slytherins have well-connected parents and it is impossible to ignore the fact that the entire Slytherin creed has a lot to do with exclusion of those not deemed "pure." The HRH trio -- an orphan with a built-in mortal enemy to torture him; the youngest son of a family that has overextended its means and a Muggle-born braniac who actually believes intelligence counts more for than appearance -- fits any outcast profile you'd care to name better than any current Slytherin. The only sympathetic Slytherin so far is Snape, and as I've said before, there comes a time when, nearly 20 years after the fact, you stop being a victim and start being an active chooser of the life you live and how you choose to live it. Darrin -- And we STILL don't know that Snape was a Slytherin anyway. From huntleyl at mssm.org Mon Aug 5 18:40:09 2002 From: huntleyl at mssm.org (Laura Ingalls Huntley) Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2002 14:40:09 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Lily/Snape ::bleh:: References: <20020804155230.19185.qmail@web9205.mail.yahoo.com> <001401c23cac$48fa4d40$daccedd1@Huntley> Message-ID: <004801c23caf$88b805a0$daccedd1@Huntley> No: HPFGUIDX 42137 Jackie: >In my humble opinion, if a DE being in love with Lily was what was >driving Voldemort to spare her (and I don't really think it was, he >hasn't been too sympathetic to his sycophants so far) it would be >Peter. OOOOooo...I like it!! I really, really like it!! Imagine Peter going to Voldemort -- prepared to break the Fidelius Charm, but with one condition...that Lily be spared. "She's not a Potter," says Wormtail -- "She doesn't *have* to die...and she's always been nice to me." And Voldemort, being the gracious baddie that his is, says, "Okay." And really *does* intend to leave Lily alive, but then she gets in his way and is very annoying, so he AK's her anyway -- too bad for Wormtail. Jackie: >It makes far more sense that he would be the one with unrequited >love for her - I imagine that she acted as sort of a protector for him >when Sirius and James got to teasing him, and maybe even helped him >fight back against students from other houses (*cough* Snape *cough*) >if he was picked on. Perhaps it's because I write too much MWPP fic, >but I've definitely got Lily pegged as the kind of girl who would be >both clever and kind enough to do that. He probably hero-worshipped her >in much the same way that he did James and Sirius, but since she's of >the female sex, that could quickly turn into adulation and outright >"love". I don't think that Lily would ever have been aware of it, >though... anyway. I have a lot of theories about Peter, but this is one >of them. :) Hmmm...sounds a lot like Hermione and Neville's relationship, doesn't it? We know Neville looks up to the Trio...comes to them when he needs help, etc. And Hermione helps him with homework and bullies, notices when he's distressed (when Mad Eye casts Crucio on the spider), and there is even evidence that he's transferred some of his admiration and gratitude towards her into a sort of crush (he *did* invite her to the Yule Ball). Actually, if you replace Hermione for Lily, Neville for Peter, and Harry and Ron for Sirius and James, the paragraph you wrote still makes complete sense. Plus, there's the fact that Harry's Dream-Peter looked like Neville -- I, for one, find that significant. (I don't, however, believe that it necessarily means that Neville will go EverSoEvil.) Ah, history repeats itself again and again. laura [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From gandharvika at hotmail.com Mon Aug 5 17:57:45 2002 From: gandharvika at hotmail.com (Gail Bohacek) Date: Mon, 05 Aug 2002 17:57:45 +0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Why Dumbledore trusts Snape -- another theory (short) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42138 I previously said: > > My personal pet theory is just the opposite...that Dumbledore saved >Snape's life when he was still a Death Eater...that having a life- >debt to Dumbledore wouldn't allow Snape to work for Voldemort any >longer: therefore he started to work for Dumbledore's side as a spy. Lama responded: >Hi.. Good theory (ANY theory involving Snape is good!) except it >didn't work that way for James Potter.. he reportedly saved Snape's >life while still at school, and we know how much gratitude that got >him (& Harry). I reply: I think that the relationship between James (& Harry) and Snape is different from the relationship between Dumbledore and Snape....James and Snape are peers, went to school together...became enemies further on down the line...and Harry has been just a continuation of James (as far as Snape is concerned). The life-debt that Snape feels compelled to repay is done begrudgingly. Dumbledore, on the other hand, is much older, a much more powerful wizard (at least, if not more, powerful than Voldemort). More of an authority-type figure. I can also see the two (Dumbledore and Snape) on friendly terms (I recall the incident at Christmas dinner in PoA where D-dore and Snape (although reluctantly) pull a cracker together)...and I see Snape, although strongly set in his miserable ways, still deferring to Dumbledore's decisions (Such as when Harry, pretending to be asleep in the Great Hall in PoA, overhears the conversation between Dumbledore and Snape as they talk about Lupis). Somebody with as much anger inside of him as Snape does could have walked out of Hogwarts a long time ago, but something is compelling him to stay...and for the record, I am willing to bet 20 Galleons that Dumbledore saved his life. Lana continues: >How about.. instead of saving Snape's life, Dumbledore >saved his wizard >credibility, rehabilitated his >reputation, or allowed him to save face in >some way. >For a character as proud (& fearless) as >Snape, that might actually earn more gratitude than >saving his life? I reply: Very good...and I think that is an extension of the life-debt that I am talking about... -Gail B. who is wondering what butter-beer tastes like: could it be anything like butter-scotch? _________________________________________________________________ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx From flower_fairy12 at yahoo.co.uk Mon Aug 5 18:15:52 2002 From: flower_fairy12 at yahoo.co.uk (flower_fairy12) Date: Mon, 05 Aug 2002 18:15:52 -0000 Subject: Harry's Putative Death In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42139 > (or words to the effect). BUT...if we're going on the Harry-as- > Christ-figure archetype, then that would seem to indicate a certain > uniqueness about him, bringing the possibility of (to borrow an > expression) boldly going where no wizard has gone before. After all, > nobody is supposed to be able to survive an AK, either. > ~Christi There have been hundreds of real-life cases of someone dying and then being resusitated and waking up again. And there have been many different causes of the death in the first place. So why can't someone survive the aftermath of being hit by a killing curse, dying, and come back to life? We don't really have the full idea of how far wizard powers can stretch, and even if Dumbledore did say no-one can be brought back to life, I'm sure at least it is possible in *some* way. I have a theory. What if Harry does die, and then he sees his parents? They tell him it isn't time for him to die and that he has so much more to live for (which he has). Then they send him back and he comes back to life. I know it sounds stupid, but it could happen! :) *Rosie* :D From gideoner4 at yahoo.com Mon Aug 5 19:18:41 2002 From: gideoner4 at yahoo.com (lexan_r) Date: Mon, 05 Aug 2002 19:18:41 -0000 Subject: Remus: The Lost Years of the Last One Standing Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42140 This has been bugging me for a long long time. If this has been discussed before, I am so sorry for bringing it up. :( I have not much time to browse through all threads, as much as I would love to. Anyway, the question is... Where do you think Remus went and what did he do in those twelve years after all his friends were gone (James dead, Sirius in prison, and Peter in hiding)? I've always wondered about that. For the life of me, I don't know what happened to him, being the last one standing of the Marauders for twelve years. Thanks. :) From eloiseherisson at aol.com Mon Aug 5 20:19:05 2002 From: eloiseherisson at aol.com (eloiseherisson at aol.com) Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2002 16:19:05 EDT Subject: Unknown Animagi Message-ID: <1ba.44d815c.2a8037b9@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 42141 Richelle: > LD again: > > > Or perhaps we should consider the feline form of Mrs. Norris? There's > > something very fishy going on with that cat, not least of all the way it > > has such an unusual bond with Filch. Thinking about it, what kind of a > > name is "Mrs Norris" for a cat anyway? Surely if it was normal it would > > be dead by now? It seems as though Mrs Norris has been there for years.. > > How long do cats live ordinarily anyway? > > Cats can live upwards of twenty years, but they don't usually get around as > easy as Mrs. Norris does. Hmm, suppose that Filch had a childhood > sweetheart and she turned out to be a witch while he turned out to be a > squid? Perhaps it would be beneath a true witch to fall in love with a > squid. So she took on a cat form? Or maybe she's just a weird cat. :) > > Is it time to remind people of one of my favourite theories (not *mine*, you understand, just one I like)? Tabouli's FLIRTIAC (Filch's Lover Is Regretting Turning Into A Cat, post #26726) theory and subsequent posts explore the reasons for Filch's closeness to his cat. I think the last version had her being transformed by her enraged husband, and then there were all the embellishments of Kitty-Gro potion, Snape's involvement, etc. etc. But didn't JKR say that there were no more hidden animagi to be sprung on us? "amelofbrockley": >umm. Could it be that Mrs Norris is a dramatic device? Ms Rowling >does seem to be good at putting in things just because they read >well, and anyway, the strange power of ordinary cats is a classic >fantasy trope cf. Greebo in the Discworld books. But then again, H.P. >Lovecraft did posit that cats were in fact a benign and hyper- >powerful race from the stars who protected mankind from various mis- >formed nasties, because they happened to like us. SO, I reckon Mrs >Norris could be the undercover hero of the cycle (what is it with >authors and their cats?) What I find interesting about this (and particularly about the fact that Hermione, with whom JKR identifies, has a cat) is that apparently (according to an interview which I remember Porphyria citing) JKR herself dislikes the creatures. I would give the ref, but I've just changed email addresses and I'm not very good at this stuff and frankly am sick of constantly switching back and forth between screen names and sending myself e-mails, which seems to be the only way I can transfer information from my old filing cabinet. Eloise Enjoying the idea of Filch as a *squid*, although suspecting that if he *were*, a liaison with a cat might be rather unusual, not to say dangerous. And also with an appeal to anyone else who uses AOL and who knows an easy way of transferring information from my other filing cabinet to this one to let me know! (Off-list, of course.) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From dicentra at xmission.com Mon Aug 5 21:01:35 2002 From: dicentra at xmission.com (dicentra63) Date: Mon, 05 Aug 2002 21:01:35 -0000 Subject: Snape's "Outcast" Status In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42142 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "darrin_burnett" wrote:> > Snape is the only Slytherin (if that truly was his house) so far that > fits the profile of an outcast. He's the only skateboarder, Goth, > class brain, kid from the other side of the tracks who is picked on > because of his or her wealth, etc... that we know was Slytherin. Uhhh... How do we know Snape was picked on at school? He might have been in opposition to the "alphas," James and Sirius, but that doesn't make him an outcast. If he ran with a crowd of Slyths, he at least had friends, and it's doubtful they were all outcasts, either. It's more likely the dynamic between the Marauders and Snape's crowd was a full-blown rivalry: the alphas of *two* houses constantly competing for everything from House Cup to Quidditch Championship to duelling to acquiring followers. --Dicentra, who thinks the "Snape was picked on" is a clear case of fanfic contamination From clare.pilotconsult at btinternet.com Mon Aug 5 16:17:14 2002 From: clare.pilotconsult at btinternet.com (Clare Johnson) Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2002 17:17:14 +0100 Subject: Ancient Magic References: <1028328928.3565.16319.m10@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <009c01c23cbc$e52dd6e0$e48801d5@e4t0t4> No: HPFGUIDX 42143 Whenever I read about the "ancient magic", it reminds me of CS Lewis' Lion, Witch and Wardrobe which I know is mentioned from time to time by posters to the list. Aslan on rising from the dead refers to the White Witch (who was responsible for his death) not being aware of an ancient or high magic (sorry can't quite remember which) which was implemented before the world was made, and which allows innocent willing victims to rise from the dead when they have died in the place of a guilty victim. Now we are certainly talking about a different world in Harry Potter but to me ancient magic practically fills the place that physics does in the muggle world. ie It's a rigid unchangeable framework unless you happen to know the rules inside out and have lots of equipment to play with them (eg anti-gravity chambers, kit to split the atom etc). The magic equivalent of such kit would be huge magical ability and wisdom such as Dumbledore possesses (and Lily by implication) but Voldemort's ego gets the better of him and he thinks that he's bigger than all the world put together; the only thing that can show him otherwise at that point with the exception of Dumbledore possibly is the ancient magic and it does just that. Its role to me seems possibly to be supporting neither good nor bad but keeping a balance and righting it when one side wins far, far too much perhaps. Other references to Ancient magic (eg Harry being under the Dursley's protection) imply that once invoked, it is unstoppable and impossible to defy as otherwise why would the Dursleys have taken Harry in? Looking forward to other thoughts on this. Clareysage From crussell at arkansas.net Mon Aug 5 20:59:09 2002 From: crussell at arkansas.net (bugaloo37) Date: Mon, 05 Aug 2002 20:59:09 -0000 Subject: Harry's Putative Death Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42144 I would simply like to add my opinion concerning the influence of Christian theology on the HP series. I have read the quote several times in which JKR states that knowing the fact she was a Christian would allow the reader to KNOW what is going to happen next. IMHO, I believe that Christian theology can be summarized in the idea that good will ultimately triumph over evil. How many people honestly believe that Voldemort will win the day? To me the ending of the series has always been obvious-Voldemort will be conquered. How this will be achieved is the OBVIOUS question. If the death of Harry is necessary for this to occur-where is the triumph? The resurrection of Christ was the ultimate proof of his power over evil. However, I am not convinced that Harry's death is necessary for this triumph to occur. I believe that Christian theology would be demonstrated simply by the overcoming of evil by good-not necessarily through the ultimate sacrifice of any of the major characters. bugaloo37-who quite simply is not prepared for Harry, Ron or Hermione to die. PS. Besides a demonstration of the ultimate sacrifice has already been seen in the death of Harry's mother, Lily. From bdmorrp at budget.state.ny.us Mon Aug 5 21:09:33 2002 From: bdmorrp at budget.state.ny.us (erisedstraeh2002) Date: Mon, 05 Aug 2002 21:09:33 -0000 Subject: Lily, Harry, and Voldemort's demise In-Reply-To: <20020801051140.64228.qmail@web21310.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42145 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Kiyari6 wrote: > The fact that Lilly gave her life for Harry > must have given him some protection, but I don't > believe it was enough to have saved his life. Now me: I agree. In the beginning of PS/SS, when McGonagall asks Dumbledore "How in the name of heaven did Harry survive?" Dumbledore says "We can only guess. We may never know." Then at the end of PS/SS, Dumbledore explains to Harry that Quirrell couldn't bear to touch Harry because Harry's mother had died for him and had left a protection in him. Harry assumes that this is the reason why Voldemort couldn't kill him as a baby, but that's not what Dumbledore actually said. When Harry meets Riddle in the Chamber of Secrets, Harry tells Riddle that the reason Voldemort couldn't kill him as a baby is because Harry's mother died to save him. Riddle/Voldy buys this and now thinks it's a "lucky chance" that saved Harry rather than something special about Harry himself. But I think there has to be something special about Harry (after all, why write 7 books about him if there isn't?!), and it's that special something that caused Voldy's AK to backfire, not Lily's sacrifice. Phyllis From rvotaw at i-55.com Mon Aug 5 21:16:01 2002 From: rvotaw at i-55.com (Richelle Votaw) Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2002 16:16:01 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Snape's "Outcast" Status References: Message-ID: <001001c23cc5$4d72fac0$94a1cdd1@istu757> No: HPFGUIDX 42146 Dicentra wrote: > Uhhh... How do we know Snape was picked on at school? He might have > been in opposition to the "alphas," James and Sirius, but that doesn't > make him an outcast. If he ran with a crowd of Slyths, he at least > had friends, and it's doubtful they were all outcasts, either. The exact quote is that Snape "was part of a gang of Slytherins, most of which turned out to be death eaters." Which leads us to believe that more than likely Lucius and co. were also part of that gang. It seems to me like Snape had friends, sure. Just like Malfoy does. Do certain people we know not like Malfoy? Yep. Did certain people not like Snape? Yep. Is Malfoy an outcast? Not really. He's not part of Harry's circle that we know, so he's outcast from them, but not "an outcast." Snape was probably in the same situation. Malfoy followed Harry and friends, hoping to get them in trouble just as Snape followed James and friends out to the whomping willow. So I'd say Snape wasn't an outcast at school any more than Malfoy is. Now on the other hand, Snape seems to make himself something of an outcast at Hogwarts now. He alienates himself from most of the teachers, does things that make them think he's trying to put Gryffindor down and doesn't explain his reasons. (Refereeing the quidditch match) I assume most of his friends from his school days are either in Azkaban, dead, or in the crowd who claimed to have been placed under the imperious curse. Not a lot of people left he can trust. Richelle From speedygonzo242 at hotmail.com Mon Aug 5 21:22:20 2002 From: speedygonzo242 at hotmail.com (frankielee242) Date: Mon, 05 Aug 2002 21:22:20 -0000 Subject: Remus: The Lost Years of the Last One Standing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42147 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "lexan_r" wrote: > This has been bugging me for a long long time. If this has been > discussed before, I am so sorry for bringing it up. :( I have not > much time to browse through all threads, as much as I would love to. > > Anyway, the question is... > > Where do you think Remus went and what did he do in those twelve > years after all his friends were gone (James dead, Sirius in prison, > and Peter in hiding)? > > I've always wondered about that. > > For the life of me, I don't know what happened to him, being the > last one standing of the Marauders for twelve years. > > Thanks. :) I've wondered about that too. I also wonder if Lupin ever went out into the muggle world to find work. He says in PoA that aside from teaching at Hogwarts he's been unable to find paying work in the WW because he's a werewolf (no page #, don't have my books with me, sorry). Which doesn't explain why the title "Professor" is stamped on his luggage in peeling letters. Where and why did he get that title? As there are two offices in the MoM for dealing with werewolves, it doesn't seem likely that there is no place for wizards afflicted with lycanthropy in the WW (Ron's reaction aside). Is it that the jobs available for werewolves are... distasteful? Judging from the shape Lupin is in at the beginning of PoA, he's obviously not staying with his parents. Is Lupin too proud to sponge off his family or are they dead? For those who subscribe to Evil!Lupin theories-- did they kick him out? If Lupin is still on good terms with his parents, what about contacts through family friends? Wouldn't Dad Lupin know somebody willing to hire Son Lupin? Okay, all of the Potters are dead, but what about the Blacks and the Pettigrews? For memory's sake, the families of my late friends keep in touch with me and on occasion have put me in touch with potential employers. Besides, James, Sirius and Peter couldn't possibly have been Lupin's only friends from Hogwarts. Here's something that isn't entirely clear to me-- Can other wizards just LOOK at Lupin (when the moon isn't full) and know he's a werewolf? In the muggle world, there are plenty of odd jobs that pay under the table and employers who turn a blind eye to things unusual... Lupin could have blended himself into general construction or landscaping, bartending (but not cooking if he's lousy at potions), third shift factory work, etc. Frankie, who spent high school summer vacations sweeping floors and cleaning machines in Detroit tool & die shops. From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Mon Aug 5 21:25:15 2002 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (bboy_mn) Date: Mon, 05 Aug 2002 21:25:15 -0000 Subject: Excuse me Professor, but are you a Professor Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42148 Noticed something strange. Recently, there has been a lot of dicussion of education in the wizard world. It would seem that there are schools of higher education in the wizard world. What makes me say that? Professor Lupin, was Professor before he came to Hogwarts. When Har/Ron/Herm enter the compartement on the train were Lupin is sleeping, Hermione notices his name on his briefcase. It says in old worn out flaking gold letters, PROFESSOR Lupin. At school, it's easy to see that the students would just call every teachers 'professor' as a courtesy title, although, some of them could really be 'professors'. That brings up the question, how does one become a 'professor'? Lupin apparently at some point in the past, did something that bestowed upon him the title of Professor. But what? Did he go to the Cambridge Wizard's University, or was it Oxford's University of Wizardry? Is there a test? You go to the Ministry of Magic, pay ten galleons, take a test, and if you pass, you get to call yourself 'Professor'. I considered that it might have to do with age. Once you become a wizened old wizard, you get to call yourself 'Professor'. But Lupin was relatively young, and that fact that the lettering on his case was very old, or appeared very old, indicated he received the title a long time ago. So is there a University of Wizardology where you can get a Masters or PHD? I have to think that even if there aren't formal schools, there are Wizard oganizations like the International Fraternal Order of Wizards (org. from one of my fan fics), where wizards can get together and do research, and study advanced wizardry, and eventually get some formal recognition for their efforts. Like titles; Dr. Harry Potter, Professor Harry Potter, Harry Potter, BW (Bachelor of Wizardry), or Hermione Granger, MWA (Master of Witchly Arts). Any thoughts? bboy_mn From speedygonzo242 at hotmail.com Mon Aug 5 22:07:55 2002 From: speedygonzo242 at hotmail.com (frankielee242) Date: Mon, 05 Aug 2002 22:07:55 -0000 Subject: Snape's "Outcast" Status In-Reply-To: <001001c23cc5$4d72fac0$94a1cdd1@istu757> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42149 > Dicentra wrote: > > Uhhh... How do we know Snape was picked on at school? He might have > > been in opposition to the "alphas," James and Sirius, but that doesn't > > make him an outcast. If he ran with a crowd of Slyths, he at least > > had friends, and it's doubtful they were all outcasts, either. Richelle Votaw wrote: > The exact quote is that Snape "was part of a gang of Slytherins, most of > which turned out to be death eaters." Which leads us to believe that more > than likely Lucius and co. were also part of that gang. It seems to me like > Snape had friends, sure. >>> SNIP <<< > So I'd say Snape wasn't an outcast at school any more than Malfoy is. I agree-- I don't think anyone who came to Hogwarts knowing more about the dark arts (curses, hexes, etc.) than most seventh years would be picked on more than once. Challenged regularly, yes. How many Slytherin upperclassmen would willing to admit defeat to some punk first year who just kicked their ass in a duel without a rematch? BTW, given the password for the Slytherin dorm in CoS, "pure-blood", I think it's safe to say Snape comes from a wizarding family. I also get the impression that Lucius Malfoy was at school with LV, though, and that Snape (and the Mauraders) are inbetween LV & Lucius's generation and the Trio's generation. I can't find the earlier post about Snape's black sense of humor and razor-sharp wit (cut downs go a long, long way towards advancing social status as I recall from my playground days), but I think the parallels between Draco's current social standing and Snape's old standing are bang on. I'm sure aspiring DE's were begging our boy Snape to teach them that really cool hex he used on so-and-so when no one was looking. Outcast? Hardly. But, his glory days are long gone. Richelle Votaw then wrote: > Now on the other hand, Snape seems to make himself something of an outcast > at Hogwarts now. He alienates himself from most of the teachers, does > things that make them think he's trying to put Gryffindor down and doesn't > explain his reasons. (Refereeing the quidditch match) I assume most of his > friends from his school days are either in Azkaban, dead, or in the crowd > who claimed to have been placed under the imperious curse. Not a lot of > people left he can trust. I don't think Snape's ever had anyone to trust-- at the end of GoF, Avery is the first to grovel in front of LV. In Dumbledore's pensive, we see Karkaroff sell Snape out to the MoM. What about his life before Hogwarts? Anyone who knows more about the dark arts than seventh year students before even setting foot in school can not POSSIBLY come from a decent home situation. Darrin has said as much before, but the Slytherin house comes across to me as the place where the power-hungry are sorted. People who step on other people to get what they want. People who hold nothing and no one else sacred. People who cheat just because they can get away with it. People who justify any means to the ends they desire. People without ethics who gamble that no one will look through the accounting ledger (or under the loose board in the drawing room). Back-stabbers, social climbers, plotters, schemers... Think of Louis and Marie-Antoinette's court shortly before the French revolution. Has anyone else seen "Ridicule"? Frankie, who still thinks Snape is in bad need of some hot cocoa and a hug. From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Mon Aug 5 22:09:12 2002 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (bboy_mn) Date: Mon, 05 Aug 2002 22:09:12 -0000 Subject: Unknown animagi In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42150 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "alexmalone2002" wrote: > Which do you think, if any, of the pets/animals in the HP > series are really animagi that have not shown their true > selves yet? Let's look at who's available amoung the existing creatures. We certainly know something unusual is going on with Crookshanks. But what? Some have speculated that Crookshanks is Mr. Figg. But the store clerk said that Crookshanks had been at the animal store for a long time, and there is no way to predict that Hermione would buy Crookshank instead of the owl she intended to buy. Trevor the toad, is a bit of an unusual animal, but toads are not especially mobile on land. Not the type of creature to take long walks exploring the castle and grounds, although Trevor does seem to get around. If we are assuming the animal is there to protect Harry, then it doen't make much sense for it to be Trevor the toad. Pigwidgeon the owl seems really high on my list. He came from someone who has a lot of connections in general, and a strong connection to Harry, as well as a strong interest in protecting Harry. Plus, Pigwidgeon is alway pretty close to Harry or at least has easy access to him. Hedwig.... possible... Harry wasn't with Hagrid when Hagrid bought the owl was he? or was he? Either way, it could have been a set up arranged by Dumbledore, Hagrid, and the story owner. You have to admit that Hedwig is an owl of exceptional talent and intelligence, and has a close bond to Harry, not to mention that Hedwig spends the summer with Harry. Hedwig also showed up at the Leaky Cauldron minutes after Harry arrived (PA). That seemed a little unusual. Within hours maybe, but minutes? Of all the animal that I can think of, Pigwidgeon seems the best bet. The bird is new, arrived unsolicited, was sent by someone who wanted to protect Harry. I wonder if it's possible for an Animagi to be able to transfigure into more than one animal. Every animal has it's limitations, so the ability to transform into more than one animal would be handy. Owls/eagles/hawks/raven can all travel great distances and can easy observe things while remaining unnoticed, but they aren't very good at using their 'hands'. Now a racoon on the other hand has very good manual dexterity. They can do amazing things. They usually have no trouble breaking into houses, turning knobs, opening windows, and similar things. So what am I getting at. Maybe, Pigwidgeon is Srius' alternate animagi form. Just a thought. Regardless of whether Pigwidgeon is Sirius, he is the only animal that has appeared on his own. All the others come from a known source and have a known history. We know nothing about Pigwidgeon. bboy_mn From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Mon Aug 5 22:14:51 2002 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (bboy_mn) Date: Mon, 05 Aug 2002 22:14:51 -0000 Subject: Unknown animagi (additional thought) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42151 If one of the existing animal in the story was an animagi, wouldn't that person's real name show up on the Maurader's Map? Of course, the persons real name could be the same as their pet name, but what are the odds of that happening? bboy_mn From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Mon Aug 5 22:19:56 2002 From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com) Date: 5 Aug 2002 22:19:56 -0000 Subject: File - hbfile.html Message-ID: <1028585996.140695862.3668.m12@yahoogroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 42152 An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gina_d at mland.gr Mon Aug 5 21:52:44 2002 From: gina_d at mland.gr (gina_malfoy) Date: Mon, 05 Aug 2002 21:52:44 -0000 Subject: Bill as the new DADA teacher Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42153 I've checked the archives and nobody has suggested this as far as I know, but forgive me if someone already has. How about Bill Weasley being the new DADA teacher? We know he works as a curse-breaker for Gringotts and I think that means he must be a very capable wizard. As I see it, curse breaking and defense against the dark arts are related. IIRC, according to someone on this list JKR said that the new DADA teacher would be a surprise to us. That's why I suppose it's not going to be a character introduced in OoTP, but someone we already know, though we do not expect to see him/her in this position. Moreover, Dumbledore will make sure the new professor is somebody trustworthy, whom he could actually count on and who also really cares about Harry and is willing to help him out (especially after everything that happened in GoF with Fake!Moody and Voldemort getting more powerful). So, who might the right man for the job be other than a Weasley? At first, I had thought of Arabella Figg, but that would be somewhat obvious, IMO. Bill sounds like a good choice. What do you think? Gina, who would also like to see Charlie teaching CoMC, if Hagrid died. From miss_dumblydore at yahoo.com Mon Aug 5 22:17:34 2002 From: miss_dumblydore at yahoo.com (Heather Gauen) Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2002 15:17:34 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Crookshanks *is* a Kneazle, was Unknown animagi In-Reply-To: <001d01c23c86$9bc5a220$8c7663d1@texas.net> Message-ID: <20020805221734.23394.qmail@web20422.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 42154 Amanda wrote: "I know that JKR has had inaccuracies in interviews (like James' team position)..." Hi, I was just curious about what inaccuracies JKR has made in interviews. And what's wrong with James' position, she said he was a chaser and I never heard otherwise (not counting the movie). Anyone? Anyone? Heather, giggling now as she pictures Ben Stein saying "Anyone? Anyone?" __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better http://health.yahoo.com From psychchick04 at yahoo.com Mon Aug 5 22:48:31 2002 From: psychchick04 at yahoo.com (Jacqueline Hendries) Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2002 15:48:31 -0700 (PDT) Subject: James and Lily's "halos" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020805224831.13158.qmail@web9204.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 42155 Eric said: >>> I know that this is going to shock some people, but I honestly think that James and Lily have acquired posthumous halos more for the way they died and because we see them through Harry's eyes, and that they may well have been flawed, fallible human beings---and could have gone through a period as teenagers where they were perfectly horrible to their less socially successful peers. <<< And I reply... I agree that the MWPP/L group was probably not 100% perfect during their adolescence, but then, NOBODY was. However, from the way that everyone seemed to react to their deaths (ie. McGonagall in chapter 1 of SS: "Oh no, not the *Potters*!!"), in their early adulthood, they were very well liked and well respected in the wizarding community. Granted that part of this was probably because of the way in which they died, but it seems to me that they were regarded as really good people. And, if the estimates on the Lexicon and elsewhere are true, James and Lily were both only in their *very* early 20s (21 or 22) when they died - really young for wizards, and just barely out of their own adolescence. Personally, I imagine that they were no more horrible than the Trio is, and they're pretty angelic for teenagers. We all know that MWPP were little troublemakers, but in an endearing way ;) and I'm guessing that Lily, if anything, was a tormentee, not a tormentor. Remember, she was a "Mudblood" during the rise of Voldemort, and as such probably had other things to worry about. I'm not even sure that this group had an intense rivalry with Snape, a la Trio vs. Malfoy, let alone picked on him purposefully; Snape seems the type who may have loathed them from afar (aside from the Whomping Willow incident, of course). I think if any of the Marauders seems the type to be brash and condescending, it's Sirius. The whole Whomping Willow thing only serves to prove that James was a "nice guy," particularly if you believe that he and Snape were practically mortal enemies. I'm not saying they were perfect as students, but I doubt they were really horrible to anyone... not infallible, not without their flaws, but overall, they were probably nice, good people. ~ Aloha ===== jackie04 at brandeis.edu __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better http://health.yahoo.com From hp_lexicon at yahoo.com Mon Aug 5 23:15:54 2002 From: hp_lexicon at yahoo.com (hp_lexicon) Date: Mon, 05 Aug 2002 23:15:54 -0000 Subject: film vs. inteviews as canon In-Reply-To: <20020805221734.23394.qmail@web20422.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42156 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Heather Gauen wrote: > Amanda wrote: > "I know that JKR has had inaccuracies in interviews > (like James' team position)..." > > Hi, I was just curious about what inaccuracies JKR has > made in interviews. And what's wrong with James' > position, she said he was a chaser and I never heard > otherwise (not counting the movie). Anyone? Anyone? As sources go, the interviews with the author definitely take precedence over the film, so I agree with you, Heather. Where's the problem there? James was a Chaser--JKR said so. What the film says is completely immaterial. The film is chock full of things which are inconsistent with the Harry Potter universe which we see in the books. It's clearly not part of the canon. I do wonder, though, if they asked her before they got to that scene? Or if instead they said, a week before filming, "Hey, we created this cool plaque and we're going to use it in that scene, what do you think?" and she said, "James was a Chaser," and they said, "Well, too late. We already made the plaque. Does it really matter?" and she said, "I suppose not." And then if in her heart she said, "The fans are gonna flip out..." You'd be surprised, though, how many fans of Harry Potter actually haven't read the books, just seen the film. I get email all the time from people who don't realize, for example, that Neville, not Ron, went into the forest, or that Hagrid got Fluffy from a "Greek chappie." They take me to task for putting "incorrect" information on the Lexicon! Steve the Lexicon From hp_lexicon at yahoo.com Mon Aug 5 23:20:31 2002 From: hp_lexicon at yahoo.com (hp_lexicon) Date: Mon, 05 Aug 2002 23:20:31 -0000 Subject: Ancient Magic In-Reply-To: <009c01c23cbc$e52dd6e0$e48801d5@e4t0t4> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42157 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Clare Johnson" wrote: > Whenever I read about the "ancient magic", it reminds me of CS Lewis' Lion, > Witch and Wardrobe which I If you're interested in reading more about this topic, there is a very nice page about ancient magic in the Lexicon's "Magic and Magical Theory" section. You can find that page here: http://www.i2k.com/~svderark/lexicon/old-magic.html An essay about the similarities between the Narnia and Potter versions of ancient magic begins about halfway down that page. Steve the Lexicon From cliff1515 at yahoo.com Mon Aug 5 23:21:52 2002 From: cliff1515 at yahoo.com (CLIFF1515) Date: Mon, 05 Aug 2002 23:21:52 -0000 Subject: Dragons are the colors of the houses. Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42158 In the fourth book the champions had to fight dragons for the 1st task. These dragons are the color of the houses when you mix up the colors . * 1st the common welsch green is obviously green *2nd the swedish short snout is silvery and blue *3rd the chinese fireball which is crimson and gold *4th the hungarian horntail which is has a black body, bronze spikes and yellow pupils. I'm not sure if it's all that important or even intentional, it's just kind of cool and I wanted to share it. (PS: I oppologise if this has been used before i didn't have time to search every inch of the archives:P) cliff1515 From dicentra at xmission.com Mon Aug 5 23:25:44 2002 From: dicentra at xmission.com (dicentra63) Date: Mon, 05 Aug 2002 23:25:44 -0000 Subject: Excuse me Professor, but are you a Professor In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42159 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "bboy_mn" wrote: > Hermione notices his name on his > briefcase. It says in old worn out flaking gold letters, PROFESSOR Lupin. "Professor R.J. Lupin," to be exact. So if he's a new professor at Hogwarts, why is the lettering peeling? Maybe he was a professor of something earlier on, like you said (maybe in the Muggle world; maybe at Durmstrang?) or maybe he inherited the briefcase from his father or uncle. OR, he bought it new right before the full moon and the wolf "aged" it a bit. --Dicentra From abigailnus at yahoo.com Mon Aug 5 23:29:27 2002 From: abigailnus at yahoo.com (abigailnus) Date: Mon, 05 Aug 2002 23:29:27 -0000 Subject: The Ancient Magic Witch theory, the fight back In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42160 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "grey_wolf_c" wrote: > Abigail wrote: > > What if it's exactly the uselessness of Lily's sacrifice that > > protects Harry? ... she chooses to die rather than leave him - knowing that it is a useless > > gesture because the > > other option is simply unthinkable to her This gesture is motivated by pure love, > > not self-interest or any other purpose - Lily doesn't think it will > > save Harry's life, and this love is deep enough to repel Voldemort's > > AK curse. > > I resist to believe this position, and I think I've made my reasons > clear enough to go through them again. I don't think it's as simple as > that because then more people would be carrying around the love shield, > and at least someone would have survived the AK before. We are talking > of no occurences in some 4000 years of magical history, which is a long > time for someone not to have sacrified his/her live for a loved one > even when it wasn't going to help. A few thoughts on the frequency of AK-ing in the wizarding world: We have no idea how old Avada Kedavra is, how commonly it is used, and how difficult it is to perform (actually, that last part isn't true, we know it is *extremely* difficult to perform.) I think it's a virtual certainty that it is not the only curse capable of killing someone. Quite apart from the suggestions that are raised periodically whenever the question of how Harry was planning to kill Sirius in the Shreaking Shack is raised (accio his heart, levitate him off the roof and let go, and other equally gruesome suggestions) we are never explicity told that there are no other other curses that kill. Avada Kedavra's only distinction is that it is absolutely unblockable. However, if your victim is sufficiently weak, or doesn't have a wand, or simply isn't a good enough wizard, there's probably no need to go for any of that fancy AK stuff, and any homicide curse will do. Furthermore, we have no idea how common murder is in the wizarding community. It's a small community, which to me suggests a lower crime rate than we're used to, but what about upheavals, coups, civil wars, reigns of terror? How common are these events, and how common is the use of Avada Kedavra in them? We have no data. All we know is that in the last century there have been two powerful dark wizards, and that at least one of them terrorised at least England for 11 years. It's possible, of course, that there have been dark wizards taking over the world every 50 years for the past 4 millenia, and that each of them felt the need to AK people by the hundreds, but it's just as likely that Voldemort and Grindlewald are the first dark wizards that the wizarding community has seen for a long, long time, and that before Voldemort's reign, Avada Kedavra was a scary story from the history books. So I think it entirely probable that Lily's case was the first in which all the circumstances conspired to create an escapable scenario. I still think it is probably very uncommon for a super-villain to offer the relatives of a victim their lives and actually mean it. (And for the offer of life to be unconditional must be even more rare - the situation I can more readily imagine is of the "you *or* your child" kind, which is a whole different kettle of fish.) It might also be uncommon that said relative would choose to die - a mother would certainly die for a child, but would a husband always die for a wife? Would a brother always die for a sister? (And remember, this is a situation in which the other person's life is no longer in question. They are definitely going to die.) In my opinion, Lily happened to make the right choice when all the variables were in her favor, and this stamped Harry with a mark of the highest kind of love - completely and totally selfless sacrifice - and this love was enough to repel the AK. It's possible that other parents died defending their children, and that other parents chose death instead of their children, but that sacrifice, however great, simply wasn't enough to block the AK, and Lily's was. (As a final note, I will point out the the only authority we have on Harry's being the only person ever to survive AK is Fake!Moody, and it's entirely possible that there have been undocumented cases of survival, or ones that were documented but forgotten, or ones that were documented and are remembered by people other than Barty Crouch Jr., how was after all a practitioner of dark magic, not a scholar of its history, and whose training was interrupted at an early age.) > > Anyway, you want a gesture motivated by "pure love, not self-interest > or any other purpose", and my version gives you that: the ancient magic > spell Lily uses *requires* to lay the caster's life for love of the > recipient. The spell will not work if there is self-interest But that is already self-interest (or at least interest.) In much the same way that Harry couldn't have retrieved the Philosopher's Stone unless he wanted solely to find it, so Lily's sacrifice would have been in vain if she had had the slightest suspicion that it would save her son's life. If she believed this then her choice to die was motivated by wanting to save Harry's life, whereas in my theory it was simply her decision that she refused to be the person who would stand aside and allow her son to die, even if not standing aside would make no difference at all. > > kangasboy wrote: > > > > >I always interpreted the "ancient magic" alluded to in HP as > > > referring to the most basic primeval forces from which all magic > > >stems. and I wrote: > > That's pretty close to my understanding of the phrase "ancient > > magic", but I thought of it more in the Narnia, ancient magic from > > before the dawn of time sense > > I think both you, Abigail, and Kangasboy are trying to play this hand > with the cards of the previous. Nothing in JKR's HP series points > towards an "elemental" magic of any sort. That's very true, although judging by message 42143 there's at least one other person who sees a connection :-) Also, given how few of JKR's ideas are truly original, I don't think it's unlikely that she had such a concept in mind when she used the phrase "ancient magic", but I see that I have very little canon backing me up (I still think Dumbledore's description of the ancient magic is consistent with the "underlying rules of magic" concept, but I don't have the books in front of me so I can't be sure.) > Then again, your argument about Voldemort forgetting one of the > principles of magic doesn't make any sense to me. As Ollivanders puts > it, "he did great things -terrible, yes, but great". Like the scientist > that invented the Atomic bomb, Voldemort is someone that knows magic > inside and out, and I don't think he would forget something as basic as > that. But he does, and he says as much in the graveyard in GoF (or at least, I think he does. As I said I don't have the books in front of me.) He says something to the effect that he had forgotten that a mother's sacrifice might provide sufficient protection from the AK, and he doesn't say anything that might suggest that a specific spell was at work. I'll look at the books tomorrow and know for sure. As resistant as you are to the idea that only Lily's love stood between Harry and annihilation, I'm just as resistant to the notion that his survival was the result of some magical mumbo-jumbo. I think it cheapens Lily's choice for it to be premeditated. I don't believe that it was a hysterical decision, but rather a moral one - it is wrong to stand aside and watch someone be killed. It is especially wrong if that someone is a person you love. And sometimes, the only right choice is the choice to die. I think that shows a lot of courage, and not just the fighting kind of courage, but moral courage too. Finally, I'm resistant to any theory that postulates the existance of some heretofore unheard-of spell in order to make it work - call it a yellow flag violation, call it the Occam's Razor of TBAY, I just like to keep it simple. Abigail From bard7696 at aol.com Mon Aug 5 23:52:34 2002 From: bard7696 at aol.com (darrin_burnett) Date: Mon, 05 Aug 2002 23:52:34 -0000 Subject: Outcasts and Slytherin Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42161 I had to race to work and overextended my lunch hour with my "Snape/Slytherin as outcasts" post earlier, but I thought of a way to illustrate my point much better. Picture a young man or woman who fits the classic profile of an outcast. Maybe the kid struggles with his or her sexuality. Maybe he or she comes from a poor background or has family members that aren't "proper." Maybe the kid has interests outside of the traditional, be it musical tastes, or drama, or religions not considered mainstream. Or, the kid has a lack of interest in sports, popular music or the dating scene. Picture that kid. Do you think he or she really would be welcome among the Slytherins that we know? I'm not talking about the "good Slytherin" that may or may not exist. I'm talking about Draco, Crabbe, Goyle, Pansy, Flint, and Millicent. Those are the ones we know and those are the ones we must deal with. Tell me that kid is welcome in that world, in Draco's world, because he is the de facto leader of the Slytherins we know. People identifying Slytherin with outcasts are doing the same thing they accuse others of doing, looking at the world through Harry's eyes. Harry is the hero and hates Slytherin. This translates that Harry is somehow the popular jock who gets any girl he wants and goes out of his way to make life miserable for those that don't fit his view of what a wizard or a person should be. He's not. If anything, that describes Draco. The Slytherins we know aren't the outcasts. They'd be the ones torturing the outcasts. Darrin -- Who has felt like Neville more often than he wants to admit and remembers EXACTLY what Draco and his gang did to Neville. From rvotaw at i-55.com Mon Aug 5 23:57:13 2002 From: rvotaw at i-55.com (Richelle Votaw) Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2002 18:57:13 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Crookshanks *is* a Kneazle, was Unknown animagi References: <20020805221734.23394.qmail@web20422.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <007b01c23cdb$d2ac3240$faa1cdd1@istu757> No: HPFGUIDX 42162 Heather wrote: > Hi, I was just curious about what inaccuracies JKR has > made in interviews. And what's wrong with James' > position, she said he was a chaser and I never heard > otherwise (not counting the movie). Anyone? Anyone? Well, I consider that the movie was the inaccuaracy, not the interview. Although it is possible that he played more than one position (say, start off as seeker for 3 or 4 years, then a chaser graduates and he moves to that spot, it's conceivable) in which case they would both be right. The only thing off the top of my head I can think of is that Hogwarts has about 1,000 students. How in the world?!?! Also, on the Crookshanks is a Kneazle thing, I can't for the life of me find the interview where she confirmed that. I did find one where someone asked about the cats and was there something more than meets the eye. She answered something like, "Well, let me see what I can tell you without giving it away. Nope, sorry, can't do it." Anyone else have better luck? Richelle From weiss145 at aol.com Mon Aug 5 22:43:38 2002 From: weiss145 at aol.com (weiss145 at aol.com) Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2002 18:43:38 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape's "Outcast" Status Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42163 Frank: > > > Darrin has said as much before, but the Slytherin house comes across to me as the place where the power-hungry are sorted. People who step on other people to get what they want. People who hold nothing and no one else sacred. People who cheat just because they can get away with it. People who justify any means to the ends they desire. People without ethics who gamble that no one will look through the accounting ledger (or under the loose board in the drawing room). Back-stabbers, social climbers, plotters, schemers... Think of Louis and Marie-Antoinette's court shortly before the French revolution. Has anyone else seen "Ridicule"? <<<<<<<<<<<<< I disagree and think that Slytherin was made for people with ambition which I feel is a good trait in people. A Slytherin was meant to be someone who achieved his goals. While this batch of Slytherin may be less then ideal, I still feel that they are more then what they seem. Look, Tom Riddle had nothing whatsoever. He was a poor orphan who was probably on the Wizard's equivalent of welfare. He became a Dark Lord, so feared by the world that his name makes people shiver. He went the wrong road but think of what a good Slytherin could accomplish. To quote J.L. Mathews, "There are few average Slytherins". They are the best and worst of what the wizarding world can create. I really don't think all the bullies in the school are from Slytherin. I could see the Weasley twins being tremendously cruel to first year and who says MWPP were such great guys? We just assume that which is wrong. I know that I would be in Slytherin if i was sorted and I consider myself quite a moral person. But I will do everything in my power to achieve my goals, no matter what. It sounds evil but it can be harnessed to good ends. A Good Slytherin will work hard to help achieve change and can be a cruseder for the underdog. A good Slytherin is relentless when something needs to be done, but his work helps people. Gwydion, the good Slyth. From purple_801999 at yahoo.com Mon Aug 5 23:43:19 2002 From: purple_801999 at yahoo.com (purple_801999) Date: Mon, 05 Aug 2002 23:43:19 -0000 Subject: Why Dumbledore trusts Snape -- a theory In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42164 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Gail Bohacek" wrote: Gail wrote- > > And I say: > > My personal pet theory is just the opposite...that Dumbledore saved Snape's > life when he was still a Death Eater...that having a life-debt to Dumbledore > wouldn't allow Snape to work for Voldemort any longer: therefore he started > to work for Dumbledore's side as a spy. > I dunno, Peter Pettigrew has a life debt to Harry, but that didn't stop the little rodent from doing his master's bidding. When do these life debts kick in anyway? The situation in the graveyard was pretty dire. Adia wrote- > >Perhaps Dumbledore's desire to repay > >Snape is the reason he is teaching at Hogwarts in the > >first place? > Possibly the still publicly unrepented DE Snape was an outcast who couldn't find work in the wizard community and had to turn to his old headmaster for a job.Dumbledore has employed a half giant,a werewolf, and a squib. And all, oddly enough, former students. -Olivia Grey From lee.farley at ntlworld.com Tue Aug 6 00:37:13 2002 From: lee.farley at ntlworld.com (LD) Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2002 01:37:13 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Why Dumbledore trusts Snape -- a theory In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c23ce1$68bf7080$6dec6bd5@mayhem> No: HPFGUIDX 42165 Olivia Grey wrote: >Dumbledore has employed a half giant,a werewolf, >and a squib. And all, oddly enough, former students. Are you sure about that? How can a Squib be a student at a school of magic? ;) -LD From jasnyder at intrex.net Tue Aug 6 03:47:49 2002 From: jasnyder at intrex.net (Jen Snyder) Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2002 22:47:49 -0500 Subject: Harry's Putative Death Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42166 Richelle writes: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42167 Harry began as a vision on a train- how interesting- I knew she had the Idea for him while traveling on a train, but have never heard it described so vividly. There are several threads currently running coparing Harry's "Ancient Magic" with that of the Narnia books, and the paralell themes of sacrifice and rebirth- let me remind you of another possible Parallel (We shall see...) The lives of the central characters in the Narnia Chronicles in a train crash. (Well, except for those who make it back to Narnia for the final days- and they are dead in this world.) I wonder, given that Dumbledore has said that death is just another great adventure, if Rowling didn't have Narnia in mind when Harry was born. Ellen, The Pottering Beekeeper --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Jen Snyder" wrote: > Richelle writes: > > I'm new to the list, but I've been thinking about this for a while. Here > are some things I think support that Harry is going to die in the seventh > book. > > One of the things that's always struck me as odd is JKR's insistence that > there won't be any books after year seven, or maybe just one that will "tie > things up" and tell us what happens to everyone (that survives, I guess). > In the A&E Biography episode she did, she talks about when she got the idea > for Harry Potter, while on a train from London to Edinburgh (or vice versa, > I can't remember which direction she was going). She describes how she > literally saw Harry walking down the aisle of the train, the idea struck her > so strongly. I hear that, and I think to myself, how could you let that > character go? How could you be so sure that you wouldn't want to write any > further stories about that character? She doesn't even suggest that other > people might take over and write about Harry's life after graduating from > Hogwarts. The only way this makes sense to me is if she knows that there > won't be any life after to write about. > > In every book, Harry has faced death, and, in some cases, has steeled > himself to accept it. Time after time, he shows himself willing and able to > place the needs of others ahead of his own life. > SS, p. 297: DUMBLEDORE: I feared I might be too late. HARRY: You nearly > were, I couldn't have kept him off the Stone much longer... DUMBLEDORE: Not > the Stone, boy, you...the effort involved nearly killed you. For one > terrible moment there, I was afraid it had. > CS, p. 321: If this is dying, thought Harry, it's not so bad. > PA, p. 384: They [the dementors] were forcing his face upwards...he could > feel its breath...it was going to get rid of him first...he could feel its > putrid breath...his mother was screaming in his ears...she was going to be > the last thing he ever heard... > GF, p. 662:...he knew one thing only, and it was beyond fear or reason. He > was not going to die crouching here like a child playing hide-and- seek; he > was not going to die kneeling at Voldemort's feet...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... > > The theme of the hero who sacrifices himself so that others may live/the > world may survive is older than Christianity. Harry is clearly on the > hero's journey. See Joseph Campbell, The Hero With A Thousand Faces and/or > The Power of Myth. And sometimes the resurrection does not involve the > physical being of the hero, but their spirit, or the way that others gain > life through their death. I also don't think Harry will destroy Voldemort > (sacrifice or no)...I think he will redeem him. Too Star Wars?...again, one > of the oldest themes in literature. > > Anyway, those are some of my thoughts. Sorry about the long post. Like I > said, I've been thinking about this for a while...I have really enjoyed > reading the list postings so far and am excited about the chance to discuss > one of my favorite stories with like-minded people (and so I don't alienate > all my friends by incessantly talking about Harry Potter). > > Jen From pat_mahony at hotmail.com Tue Aug 6 07:40:35 2002 From: pat_mahony at hotmail.com (kangasboy) Date: Tue, 06 Aug 2002 07:40:35 -0000 Subject: The Ancient Magic Witch theory, the fight back In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42168 Let me just begin by saying, "Abigail, I love you!". You have stated exactly what I believe, but in a way that makes more sense! Just a few extra little bits: Abigail: > We have no idea how old Avada Kedavra is, how commonly it is used, and > how difficult it is to perform (actually, that last part isn't true, we know it is > *extremely* difficult to perform.) I think it is quite possible that Voldemort himself invented the Avada Kedavra Curse. Or at least brought it to the attention of the wider wizarding community. "Flash of green light" suggests heir of Slytherin, just as red and gold sparks suggests Gryffindor. That would explain why Voldemort was so feared, and why there isn't a counter-curse. There wasn't enough known about it, and you would be hard pressed to find any guinea-pigs to test it on. If this is the case, well, that supports stance. I think the fact that Voldemort didn't want to kill Lily was the reason why her sacrifice was more powerful. If Voldemort was going to kill someone anyway, or didn't care, then it didn't matter what order they died, so the sacrifice wasn't powerful enough. > But that is already self-interest (or at least interest.) In much the same way > that Harry couldn't have retrieved the Philosopher's Stone unless he wanted > solely to find it, so Lily's sacrifice would have been in vain if she had had the > slightest suspicion that it would save her son's life. If she believed this then > her choice to die was motivated by wanting to save Harry's life, whereas in > my theory it was simply her decision that she refused to be the person who > would stand aside and allow her son to die, even if not standing aside would > make no difference at all. I am of the belief that if Lily cast a contrived spell, the purity of her sacrifice is lessened. I draw attention (again) to Dumbledore's speech at the end of PS/SS, about how it was love that prevented Quirrell touching him; no mention of magic. I think the importance of this is the fact that there are more powerful forces than the ritualistic magic being taught and practised in the WW. Another fact I would like to raise, that doesn't lend support to either side, is the fact that Harry has learnt very little of the nature of magic since Book 1. . . Other than that love speech of Dumbeldore, plus obviously, learning he was a wizard, Harry doesn't seem to know much about the origins or nature of magic. > Also, given how few of JKR's ideas are truly original, I don't think it's unlikely > that she had such a concept in mind when she used the phrase "ancient magic", Intertextuality is a concept that states that no text or piece of literature, especially in the modern day, is purely original. Bad intertextuality is plagiarism, but good intertextuality (such as in Harry Potter) is done so subtly and in such a manner that it enhances the meaning of the text. I think this is obviously the case with HP, as aspects of many legends have been joined together to form a unique pastiche, that possesses an originality in its style and composition, not necessarily its plot, characters etc. And finally, I'd just like to say that the spell performed by Voldemort is described by him as "an old piece of Dark Magic". I draw attention to *old*; *old*, but not *ancient*. While having very similar meanings, they are not the same. And this *old* magic fits in much more with Grey Wolf's theory of ancient magic (that which is no longer used, for some reason or another). I believe this magic to be quite different from the ancient magic alluded to by Dumbledore. Roo, who once again has writtend far more than he should have. From pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk Tue Aug 6 08:07:54 2002 From: pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk (bluesqueak) Date: Tue, 06 Aug 2002 08:07:54 -0000 Subject: Excuse me Professor, but are you a Professor In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42169 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "bboy_mn" wrote: > Noticed something strange. Recently, there has been a lot of > dicussion of education in the wizard world. > > It would seem that there are schools of higher education in the > wizard world. What makes me say that? Professor Lupin, was > Professor before he came to Hogwarts. When Har/Ron/Herm enter the > compartement on thetrain were Lupin is sleeping, Hermione notices > his name on his briefcase. It says in old worn out flaking gold > letters, PROFESSOR Lupin. I forget the exact interview reference, but don't we have an interview where JKR says there are NO Wizarding universities? I think we're all being fooled by the muggle world education system, where education beyond secondary/high school is still extremely formal. Judging by the amount of time the Trio (and others) spend in the library, Hogwarts is extremely strong on teaching even its youngest students the skills of independent research. Ron's brother Charlie is doing research ["Charlie's in Romania studying dragons" PS/SS p.80 UK paperback) and there is NO mention that he's connected to any wizarding university. > At school, it's easy to see that the students would just call every > teachers 'professor' as a courtesy title, although, some of them > could really be 'professors'. That brings up the question, how does > one become a 'professor'? The students don't call every teacher 'professor'. Hagrid is still Hagrid, even though he's now teaching 'Care of Magical Creatures' and Madame Hootch, Flying Instructor and presumably Hogwarts graduate is 'Madame', rather than 'Professor' Hootch. More subtly, Dumbledore corrects Harry when he calls Severus Snape plain 'Snape' at the end of PS/SS - "*Professor* Snape, Harry" [PS/SS p. 217 UK paperback]- which suggests that 'Professor' is a title Snape has earned. > > Lupin apparently at some point in the past, did something that > bestowed upon him the title of Professor. But what? Did he go to the > Cambridge Wizard's University, or was it Oxford's University of > Wizardry? > > So is there a University of Wizardology where you can get a Masters > or PHD? > > I have to think that even if there aren't formal schools, there are > Wizard oganizations like the International Fraternal Order of > Wizards(org. from one of my fan fics), where wizards can get > together and do research, and study advanced wizardry, and > eventually get some formal recognition for their efforts. Like > titles; Dr. Harry Potter,Professor Harry Potter, Harry Potter, BW > (Bachelor of Wizardry), or Hermione Granger, MWA (Master of Witchly > Arts). This would be in keeping with the British/Muggle 'Royal Society' system, where you can be made a 'Fellow' - either by doing something dramatic, like an exciting expedition (Royal Geographical Society) or by presenting one or more papers to members of the Society. You then get to put the letters FRS, or FRGS (or whichever society it is) after your name - and since the members are pretty well all respected in their field, these letters are very well regarded. Perhaps there is a wizard equivalent - the 'professors' in the book are all people who've presented the findings of their research to the British Confederation of Wizards, or something. They've then been awarded the title. > > Any thoughts? > Well, I do wonder if Charlie's 'dragon studying' is leading up to his becoming 'Professor Weasley'. Especially since the intense speculation on the list about Hagrid's life expectancy [doomed, he's doomed!] tends towards the theory that Hogwarts will need a new Care of Magical Creatures instructor by Book 6 or 7. Pip From Elvishooked at hotmail.com Tue Aug 6 02:48:27 2002 From: Elvishooked at hotmail.com (elvishooked) Date: Tue, 06 Aug 2002 02:48:27 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's "triumph" Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42170 It has been a very long time since I visited this group and for now only had time to read some of the newest postings - therefore I appologize if the subject has been brought up recently. At the end of GoF when Dumbledore asks Harry about what happened when Voldemort came back - and Harry tells him about the blood from his arm that Voldemort uses - there is a look of triumph in Dumbledore's eyes. (I didn't read the english version yet so not sure if the word actually IS "triumph"?). I wondered a lot what this could probably mean. Why would Dumbledore get a look of triumph learning that Voldemort now has Harry's blood running through his veins.... I went back to book 1 and re-read what Dumbledore said to Harry at the end of that one. He said, that Voldemort does not understand love - and that Harry's life was saved by the love from his mother by an unseen mark (love, not the scar) - a mark that lived in/under Harry's skin. Now - could it be that when Voldemort took in Harry's blood he got some of that 'love' transferred into himself? Is that what made the triumphant look on Dumbledore when he learned about it? Just wondering. I have no wish for Voldemort to suddenly be good or filled with love - I want him to stay as evil as it gets - but it is possible that we need to go back to that talk between Dumbledore and Harry at the end of book 1 to solve the triumph look at the end of book 4. Inge From purple_801999 at yahoo.com Tue Aug 6 05:15:47 2002 From: purple_801999 at yahoo.com (purple_801999) Date: Tue, 06 Aug 2002 05:15:47 -0000 Subject: Why Dumbledore trusts Snape -- a theory In-Reply-To: <000001c23ce1$68bf7080$6dec6bd5@mayhem> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42171 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "LD" wrote: > Olivia Grey wrote: > >Dumbledore has employed a half giant,a werewolf, > >and a squib. And all, oddly enough, former students. > LD wrote - > Are you sure about that? How can a Squib be a student at a school of > magic? ;) Well, Dumbldore had to know Filch's family from somewhere and whose to say he wouldn't have let him learn whatever he could. My main point was that D-dore has shown compassion and has taken his former students in more than once when no one else would have them. -Olivia From Elvishooked at hotmail.com Tue Aug 6 11:44:23 2002 From: Elvishooked at hotmail.com (elvishooked) Date: Tue, 06 Aug 2002 11:44:23 -0000 Subject: Would Lily have been spared? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42172 If Voldemort had succeeded in killing James and Harry first - would he have let Lily go? I think he would. What was it about James and Harry - and not Lily - that was such a threat to Voldemort? Inge From bard7696 at aol.com Tue Aug 6 12:45:30 2002 From: bard7696 at aol.com (darrin_burnett) Date: Tue, 06 Aug 2002 12:45:30 -0000 Subject: Would Lily have been spared? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42173 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "elvishooked" wrote: > If Voldemort had succeeded in killing James and Harry first - would > he have let Lily go? I think he would. > What was it about James and Harry - and not Lily - that was such a > threat to Voldemort? > > Inge You see, I don't know. I realize that wondering why Lily appeared to have been spared is a great mystery, but what if it's just a wild goose chase? If he really wanted to spare Lily, why couldn't he have spared Lily? He could have magically (or physically, for that matter) yanked Harry from Lily's arms, or put the Crucio curse on her and, while she was writhing in pain, rolled her away from Harry, or any one of a number of spells, curses or charms I'm not thinking off right now to separate Harry from Lily's grasp. After all, this is the brightest Hogwarts student ever we're talking about. There were other options besides AK at his disposal. If he really wanted to keep it non-lethal where Lily was concerned, it seems like he could have. Maybe Lily would have been killed all along, just to be tidy and Voldemort, an efficient sort -- and perhaps pressed for time -- wanted to make sure he got James and Harry first. Obviously, for plot purposes, you need Harry's mother sacrificing for him to make the story go. BUT, if we find out Lily was to be spared for some reason, it strikes me as a real FLINT problem. Darrin -- first time I've ever used FLINT in a post From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Tue Aug 6 13:32:28 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Tue, 06 Aug 2002 13:32:28 -0000 Subject: Would Lily have been spared? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42174 Darrin wrote: > Obviously, for plot purposes, you need Harry's mother sacrificing for > him to make the story go. BUT, if we find out Lily was to be spared > for some reason, it strikes me as a real FLINT problem. > > Darrin > -- first time I've ever used FLINT in a post The return of metathinking, I see. As the well-known oposer of metathinking as a way to explore the books, I thought I should throw in my input. There are two ways out of this FLINT, that I can see. 1) Voldemort was not planning to kill Lily: He did, in fact, for some reason of his own we have not been told, plan to let Lily live. If this was the case, there is no FLINT: V wanted her out of the way, and she managed to get in the way. 2) Voldemort was planning to kill Lily. He just let her for dessert out of sheer cruelty, or simply because he wasn't sure he had enough energy left to AK twice, and he selected Harry (It turns out that he did, in fact, have enough, but that's another story). Don't be so quick to assign "plot device" FLINT to this situation. It's too early in the books for it to be forced (i.e. I don't think that JKR rushed her way through this; it's more likely that she planned it VERY carefully, being THE biggest moment in Harry's life so far). The trouble is, we just have too little information (in fact, when the-celluloid-thing-that-must-not-be-named gives more information on it than the four books put toghether, you can get an idea of just how little we know about what happened that fateful night). Hope that helps, Grey Wolf, who's favourite hp-related hobby is to find plausible explanations to so-called "FLINTS". From mrflynn6 at yahoo.com Tue Aug 6 13:33:20 2002 From: mrflynn6 at yahoo.com (mrflynn6) Date: Tue, 06 Aug 2002 13:33:20 -0000 Subject: Bill as the new DADA teacher In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42175 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "gina_malfoy" wrote: > I've checked the archives and nobody has suggested this as far as I > know, but forgive me if someone already has. > > How about Bill Weasley being the new DADA teacher? We know he works > as a curse-breaker for Gringotts and I think that means he must be a > very capable wizard. As I see it, curse breaking and defense against > the dark arts are related. > > IIRC, according to someone on this list JKR said that the new DADA > teacher would be a surprise to us. That's why I suppose it's not > going to be a character introduced in OoTP, but someone we already > know, though we do not expect to see him/her in this position. > Moreover, Dumbledore will make sure the new professor is somebody > trustworthy, whom he could actually count on and who also really > cares about Harry and is willing to help him out (especially after > everything that happened in GoF with Fake!Moody and Voldemort getting > more powerful). So, who might the right man for the job be other than > a Weasley? > > At first, I had thought of Arabella Figg, but that would be somewhat > obvious, IMO. Bill sounds like a good choice. What do you think? > > Gina, who would also like to see Charlie teaching CoMC, if Hagrid > died. ----------------------- Oh, Bill is a good choice. We don't know much about him and that would be one way to get to know him better. It would also allow the storyline to continue into the Weasley's past and possibly get into the missing son? The person I thought would "surprise" us as DADA teacher would be Molly Weasley. She would be a trusted person and would look after Harry. We don't know what she did to fight Voldermort as part of the "old croud". From rvotaw at i-55.com Tue Aug 6 13:55:18 2002 From: rvotaw at i-55.com (Richelle Votaw) Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2002 08:55:18 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] AK curse (was Re: The Ancient Magic Witch theory, the fight back) References: Message-ID: <006e01c23d50$e6ef0fa0$33a1cdd1@istu757> No: HPFGUIDX 42176 Roo writes: > I think it is quite possible that Voldemort himself invented the > Avada Kedavra Curse. Or at least brought it to the attention of the > wider wizarding community. "Flash of green light" suggests heir > of Slytherin, just as red and gold sparks suggests Gryffindor. > That would explain why Voldemort was so feared, and why there > isn't a counter-curse. There wasn't enough known about it, and > you would be hard pressed to find any guinea-pigs to test it on. Well a good spider would do as Moody/Crouch showed us. That aside, what exactly does it take to perform the AK? Moody/Crouch tells us "Avada Kedavra's a curse that needs a powerful bit of magic behind it--you could all get your wands out now and point them at me and say the words, and I doubt I'd get so much as a nosebleed." Voldemort obviously is the most successful with this curse, which could indicate that he invented it. Or perfected it. But we already know he's powerful, so he's certainly got enough magic behind it. What about Peter Pettigrew? I know Voldemort (in ugly baby whatever form) killed Frank Bryce, and I can't quite remember about Bertha, but can't find it right now. Didn't Pettigrew actually kill Cedric though? In the graveyard Harry heard "a high cold voice say, "Kill the spare." A swishing noise and a second voice, which screeched the words to the night: "Avada Kedavra!"" Is Pettigrew that powerful? Or is it because of some sort of special tutoring from Voldemort? I've just never thought of Pettigrew as a really powerful wizard, especially since he's been out of practice in rat form for 12 years or so. Richelle From rvotaw at i-55.com Tue Aug 6 14:00:41 2002 From: rvotaw at i-55.com (Richelle Votaw) Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2002 09:00:41 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Bill as the new DADA teacher References: Message-ID: <008701c23d51$c02fd240$33a1cdd1@istu757> No: HPFGUIDX 42177 mrflynn6 wrote: > Oh, Bill is a good choice. We don't know much about him and that > would be one way to get to know him better. It would also allow the > storyline to continue into the Weasley's past and possibly get into > the missing son? Bill's not female though, isn't it confirmed that the new DADA teacher will be female? > The person I thought would "surprise" us as DADA teacher would be > Molly Weasley. She would be a trusted person and would look after > Harry. We don't know what she did to fight Voldermort as part of > the "old croud". That would be something. She is female, she is trusted, she would definitely look out for Harry. She would surely have been a part of the fight against Voldemort somehow. She may be more qualified than we realize. But can you imagine, she'd be trying to tuck Harry in at night, dusting Ron's robes off in front of class, and so on. Would add a few touching funny moments! My money's still on Mrs. Figg, though. At the moment. Richelle From bard7696 at aol.com Tue Aug 6 13:59:14 2002 From: bard7696 at aol.com (darrin_burnett) Date: Tue, 06 Aug 2002 13:59:14 -0000 Subject: Would Lily have been spared? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42178 Grey wolf wrote: > > The return of metathinking, I see. As the well-known oposer of > metathinking as a way to explore the books, I thought I should throw in > my input. There are two ways out of this FLINT, that I can see. > > 1) Voldemort was not planning to kill Lily: He did, in fact, for some > reason of his own we have not been told, plan to let Lily live. If this > was the case, there is no FLINT: V wanted her out of the way, and she > managed to get in the way. > It's not metathinking to point out that V-mort could have spared Lily. And I didn't really use metathinking to explain the FLINT, but to point out how it could have happened. Now, to the FLINT repair. Yes, if Lily had gotten out of the way and then jumped into the way just as V-Mort was going to AK Harry, catching the blast, then that is a solution. It also clears up some of the questions of the sacrifice itself. She could have lived, but she didn't. My point remains that V-Mort, had he wanted to move Lily without hurting her (permanently), he could have. And if he wanted to because she's his daughter, or the love of Snape's life, or the love of Wormtail's life, or the Animagus second cousin to Voldemort's pet hamster, or WHATEVER the theory is, then he should have been able to. > 2) Voldemort was planning to kill Lily. He just let her for dessert out > of sheer cruelty, or simply because he wasn't sure he had enough energy left to AK twice, and he selected Harry (It turns out that he did, in fact, have enough, but that's another story). > This is more credible. Or the fact that he simply wanted to take care of business first. Or perhaps Dumbledore had other defenses there and V-Mort wanted to get out as quickly as possible. > Don't be so quick to assign "plot device" FLINT to this situation. It's too early in the books for it to be forced (i.e. I don't think that JKR rushed her way through this; it's more likely that she planned it VERY > carefully, being THE biggest moment in Harry's life so far). The > trouble is, we just have too little information (in fact, when > the-celluloid-thing-that-must-not-be-named gives more information on it > than the four books put toghether, you can get an idea of just how > little we know about what happened that fateful night). > You don't have to scold me. I said: "IF" Lily was to be spared, there is a FLINT problem that has to be solved. Lily's sacrifice must remain untouched by plot holes. It is the most pivotal event in the books. Therefore, unless it is written very carefully, Lily-meant-to-be-spared is a gaping plot hole. So, engaging in metathinking, I would hope JKR keeps the pivotal event intact rather than go for the shock value twist. Darrin -- I'm not afraid of the film. I NAME IT! From lilac_bearry at yahoo.com Tue Aug 6 14:01:14 2002 From: lilac_bearry at yahoo.com (Lilac) Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2002 07:01:14 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [FILK] Arthur, et al Message-ID: <20020806140114.41408.qmail@web40306.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 42179 "Arthur, et al" to the tune of "Jacob and Sons" from JOSEPH AND THE AMAZING TECHNICOLOR DREAM COAT midi link: http://www.broadwaymidi.com/shows/joseph_and_the_amazing_technicolor_dreamcoat.html Dedicated to anyone from large families (I'm from a family of 9 like the Weasley's!) Way, way back many pages ago not long after book one began Harry met Ron on the Hogwart's Express just one example of a Weasley man Arthur, Arthur et al can't fit them all in their breakfast nook Arthur, Arthur et al a remarkable family in anyone's book Arthur is the father of a wonderful family thanks to the number of children he has he's known as Mr. Weasley, but soon we will hear Hermione and Harry call him "Dad" Arthur, Arthur et al with a large family, the budget they juggle Arthur, Arthur et al collects lots of batteries and plugs from Muggles Molly is the mother of the children of Arthur Bill and Charlie are next in line Percy, Fred, George and Ron and then Ginny brings the total to nine Arthur, Arthur et al don't forget Hermione, which leaves only one Arthur, Arthur et al Harry, another "adopted" son Arthur, Arthur et al (repeats 2 more times) Arthur, Arthur, Arthur, Arthur et al! ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~ "Tut, tut --- hardly any of you remembered that my favorite color is *lilac*. I say so in Year with the Yeti." --Gilderoy Lockhart, COS --------------------------------- Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From mike at aberforthsgoat.net Tue Aug 6 15:38:09 2002 From: mike at aberforthsgoat.net (Aberforth's Goat) Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2002 17:38:09 +0200 Subject: [HPforGrownups] film vs. inteviews as canon References: Message-ID: <032001c23d5f$450c59e0$0200a8c0@shasta> No: HPFGUIDX 42180 Steve wrote, > As sources go, the interviews with the author definitely take > precedence over the film, so I agree with you, Heather. Where's the > problem there? James was a Chaser--JKR said so. What the film says > is completely immaterial. The film is chock full of things which are > inconsistent with the Harry Potter universe which we see in the > books. It's clearly not part of the canon. Hmm. I agree that the film takes many liberties with the text, many of which are completely gratuitous. However, I still find it a bit of an over simplification to say that the film is clearly non-canonical. I say that becuase I still find it quite likely that the film actually adds authoritative corrections, glosses and foreshadowings to the text. In all three cases, I'm thinking of details which Jo may have well have authorized - by corrections I mean places where she has smoothed over inaccuracies; by glosses, extra background material she already had but left out of the books; by foreshadowings, details which may be based on material she is currently preparing for later versions of the books. BTW, Magister Foran's questions about an unknown character called Amanda just *might* be an example of the last category. Suppose that Jo intentionally authorized that character because she had realized that she needs an "Amanda" for some scene of smoldering passion in OoP? No, it can't be proved - but it would make sense! Especially for those of us who know the *real* Amanda. (BTW, I wrote more about the in an essay I've put up on my site: http://www.geocities.com/aberforths_goat/canon.htm.) 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 Elvishooked at hotmail.com Tue Aug 6 13:07:49 2002 From: Elvishooked at hotmail.com (elvishooked) Date: Tue, 06 Aug 2002 13:07:49 -0000 Subject: Would Lily have been spared? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42181 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "darrin_burnett" wrote: > If he really wanted to spare Lily, why couldn't he have spared Lily? << Okay, that was not really my point - not that Voldemort *really wanted* to spare Lily. Only that it didn't seem important to him if she lived or died. He was going for James and Harry (he *really wanted* THEM to die) and only killed Lily because she was in his way to get to Harry... --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "darrin_burnett" wrote: > Obviously, for plot purposes, you need Harry's mother sacrificing for > him to make the story go. BUT, if we find out Lily was to be spared > for some reason, it strikes me as a real FLINT problem.<< Yes of course you're right. For plot purposes she had to die - but I still think that if Voldemort had gotten to Harry he wouldn't care much about Lily and would probably have left the house - mission accomplished - her being alive or not. That's what makes me wonder why James and Harry was a bigger threat to him than Lily was. If in fact she was a threat to him at all, which I doubt that she was. Inge From Elvishooked at hotmail.com Tue Aug 6 13:16:18 2002 From: Elvishooked at hotmail.com (elvishooked) Date: Tue, 06 Aug 2002 13:16:18 -0000 Subject: Who was witness to the killing of James and Lily? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42182 I have so many (stupid) questions - hoping somebody can clear up some of them for me ;-) On the night that Voldemort killed James and Lily - who was actually present at the house to tell what really happened? I dont recall having read of anyone except James, Lily, Harry and Voldemort being in the house when they were killed. So who actually TOLD the story of what happened? How is it that everybody knows that Lily sacrificed her self to protect Harry? She and James died. Harry didnt remember anything and Voldemort "ran". Who told Dumbledore (and everyone else) what exactly went on in that house? Inge From bdmorrp at budget.state.ny.us Tue Aug 6 14:05:36 2002 From: bdmorrp at budget.state.ny.us (erisedstraeh2002) Date: Tue, 06 Aug 2002 14:05:36 -0000 Subject: Why Wasn't Hagrid Cleared? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42183 I'm a new member, but thanks to Darrin's kind note about not being afraid to bring up a topic that's probably been discussed a million times before, I'm going to bring up a question that I have about CoS - which is, why does everyone (except Dumbledore) still believe Hagrid opened the Chamber of Secrets 50 years ago when it subsequently became clear that Tom Riddle was Voldemort and the true Heir of Slytherin? As Professor Binns points out, only the Heir of Slytherin can open the chamber. So once Riddle revealed himself as Voldemort and the Heir of Slytherin, why didn't everyone put these pieces together and realize that Hagrid was framed? The only way I can make this make sense is if Dumbledore is the only one who knows that Riddle is Voldemort. But if Dumbledore's the only one who knows, how did he find out something that no one else knows, and why did he keep it a secret? Also, on p. 314 (Scholastic ed.), Riddle tells Harry that Voldemort "was a name I was already using at Hogwarts, to my most intimate friends only, of course." Are we to assume that this was a secret these "intimate friends" kept for 50 years? Especially since some of them renounced Voldemort when he fell from power? Also, why would Hagrid be sent to Azkaban during the second wave of attacks when he wasn't sent there the first time (when there was presumably more compelling evidence against him)? Are we to presume that one has to be a certain age in order to be sent to Azkaban, and Hagrid was too young the first time? I also noticed that at the end of CoS (Chapter 17), when Harry meets Riddle in the Chamber, Riddle is referred to as "Riddle" every time except for once on p. 318 (Scholastic ed.)where it says "*Voldemort* was laughing." I'm wondering whether there's any significance to this? I'd love to hear your thoughts - thanks! Phyllis who is having trouble today following JKR's advice to "not let the Muggles get you down" From gandharvika at hotmail.com Tue Aug 6 15:08:58 2002 From: gandharvika at hotmail.com (Gail Bohacek) Date: Tue, 06 Aug 2002 15:08:58 +0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Life Debt Pay Backs(was:why Dumbledore Trusts Snape) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42184 Olivia Wrote: >I dunno, Peter Pettigrew has a life debt to Harry, but that didn't >stop the little rodent from doing his master's bidding. When do these >life debts kick in anyway? The situation in the graveyard was pretty >dire. I Respond: Peter "Wormtail" Pettigrew is a sniveling coward without any sense of moral fiber. I have a feeling that he might need to be *reminded* sometime in the future that he owes his life to Harry. -Gail B. _________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com From nplyon at yahoo.com Tue Aug 6 16:30:07 2002 From: nplyon at yahoo.com (nplyon) Date: Tue, 06 Aug 2002 16:30:07 -0000 Subject: James and Lily's "halos" In-Reply-To: <20020805224831.13158.qmail@web9204.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42185 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Jacqueline Hendries wrote: > I'm not saying they were perfect as students, but I doubt they were > really horrible to anyone... not infallible, not without their > flaws, but overall, they were probably nice, good people. > > ~ Aloha > (OT Comment: Aloha, love your name. Very clever!) Add to this Hagrid's very emotional reaction when he shows up at Privet Drive with Harry. Later, Hagrid tells Harry some very kind things about his parents. Some might argue that this is because Hagrid is fond of Harry but why is Hagrid fond of Harry? I would think that Hagrid would have had to have had a good relationship with Harry's parents in order to feel such an emotional attachment to a child who is not related to him in some manner. We all know that good old Hagrid makes no bones about saying what he really thinks about people and I don't think he'd be so nice about the Potters unless what he's saying has some truth to it. I also don't think he'd be as fond of Harry as he is if he didn't like Harry's parents. ~Nicole, who is feeling the pains of U.S. corporate downsizing because her boss told her yesterday that her current position (which she likes) is being eliminated but she may return to her old position (which she hates) rather than being laid off. Wow, what a trade off! From mrflynn6 at yahoo.com Tue Aug 6 16:40:20 2002 From: mrflynn6 at yahoo.com (mrflynn6) Date: Tue, 06 Aug 2002 16:40:20 -0000 Subject: Bill as the new DADA teacher In-Reply-To: <008701c23d51$c02fd240$33a1cdd1@istu757> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42186 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Richelle Votaw" wrote: > mrflynn6 wrote: > > > > Bill's not female though, isn't it confirmed that the new DADA teacher will > be female? > > > The person I thought would "surprise" us as DADA teacher would be > > Molly Weasley. She would be a trusted person and would look after > > Harry. We don't know what she did to fight Voldermort as part of > > the "old croud". > > That would be something. She is female, she is trusted, she would > definitely look out for Harry. She would surely have been a part of the > fight against Voldemort somehow. She may be more qualified than we realize. > But can you imagine, she'd be trying to tuck Harry in at night, dusting > Ron's robes off in front of class, and so on. Would add a few touching > funny moments! My money's still on Mrs. Figg, though. At the moment. > > Richelle _________________ If I remember correctly from the JKR interview, JKR was asked if we would ever see a female DADA teacher and she simply answered "yes". People are assuming it will be in OoP, but it could be in #6 or #7. I checked the Lexicon and couldn't find anything about a female confirmation there, but maybe someone knows for sure. My bet is still on Molly. Gretchen-who always forgets to sign her posts. From psychchick04 at yahoo.com Tue Aug 6 17:55:15 2002 From: psychchick04 at yahoo.com (Jacqueline Hendries) Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2002 10:55:15 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: new DADA teacher In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020806175515.57235.qmail@web9203.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 42187 Suggested so far: Molly Weasley, Fleur Delacoeur, Arabella Figg, Bill or Charlie Weasley... What about Madam Pomfrey? She's obviously good with healing, and as she was around during the time of Voldemort, she's probably got considerable experience with treating the effects of Dark Magic - and she probably knows some "preventative medicine" as well. Any thoughts? ~ Aloha Moira (who is glad that someone seems to "get" her name!) ===== jackie04 at brandeis.edu __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better http://health.yahoo.com From DaveH47 at mindspring.com Tue Aug 6 18:05:02 2002 From: DaveH47 at mindspring.com (Dave Hardenbrook) Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2002 11:05:02 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] film vs. inteviews as canon In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <984578134.20020806110502@mindspring.com> No: HPFGUIDX 42188 Monday, August 5, 2002, 4:15:54 PM, hp_lexicon wrote: h> You'd be surprised, though, how many fans of Harry Potter actually h> haven't read the books, just seen the film. I get email all the time h> from people who don't realize, for example, that Neville, not Ron, h> went into the forest, or that Hagrid got Fluffy from a "Greek h> chappie." They take me to task for putting "incorrect" information h> on the Lexicon! Sounds like the E-mail I get saying things like, "What do you mean 'Dorothy's Silver Slippers'? Everyone knows they're *Ruby*!" -- Dave (Who takes some small solace in the fact that WB at least didn't make Hogwarts just a *dream*!) From speedygonzo242 at hotmail.com Tue Aug 6 18:19:44 2002 From: speedygonzo242 at hotmail.com (frankielee242) Date: Tue, 06 Aug 2002 18:19:44 -0000 Subject: TBAY: Werewolves, Vampires and Secret Missions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42189 The morning sun glitters on the calm waters of Theory Bay. A number of anchored ships bob gently in the breeze. Beside them, rigging from scuttled boats break the surface like drowned trees. On a grassy dune near the mouth of the harbor, Frankie gathers up a number of loose boards bearing an assortment of letters and chirps to a hobbled kelpie grazing nearby. ?Think everyone is awake yet, hmmm?? she asks. ?Well, come on then.? The kelpie shakes his mane of bulrushes and snorts. Already barefoot, Frankie swings a tan leg over his back and gathers up the reins, but the kelpie needs no encouragement to leap into the water. They swim towards the anchored ships from which cigarette smoke, the scent of coffee and snatches of conversation drift across the water. > "But," says Pippin, "I still say there is no mutual exclusion > between Snape is a Vampire and Snape Loved Lily. " > > Pip!Squeak shuffled her feet in embarrassment. 'Snape is a > half-vampire' is a theory she could live with, except: > > "Well, we've got a half-giant teacher, a werewolf ex-teacher, > a teacher who looks suspiciously like he might be half-goblin > [Flitwick] - if Snape's a vampire it's going to look like JKR's > trying to tell kids that teachers aren't really human. ;-) ?They ain't, except for a precious few... HALLOO!!? Frankie hollers. ?Is anyone missing bits of their boats?? A number people appear at portholes or lean over deck railings, returning the hello but replying in the negative. ?Is everyone sure?? Frankie asks, reining in the kelpie next to the largest ship. He patiently chews seaweed as she continues. ?I?ve got an armful of planks here that seem as though they belong to someone. No full titles or anything, just letters.? ?Well, what do you think they stand for?? asks a woman in sunglasses, clutching a mug of coffee. The man next to her at the railing nods encouragingly and shades his eyes. ?Given the type-faces used for some of these,? Frankie begins, ?I think they have to do with werewolves and vampires in the WW, which may be involved with specific characters? histories. There isn?t much out there in the canon about them-- I spent all of yesterday swimming in it, looking. Here?s what I?ve gathered. Both werewolves and vampires bite people, right? That?s how they transmit their ?conditions.? They?re not undead, they?re just carrying an infectious pathogen. Both conditions sound a bit some nasty transmittable diseases in the muggle world, if you ask me. We all know Lupin was bitten by a werewolf before he was old enough to attend Hogwarts. If he bites anyone (without killing and eating them, that is), they too will become werewolves. If the pathogen is in the werewolves' saliva, would that put the ka-bosh on "swapping spit" or does the saliva have to come into direct contact with the bloodstream? Lupin is nice guy and bound to have had a girlfriend or two along the way. Vampires seem to work the same way, although there?s not much in the canon to go on. Usually, they either bite you and kill you or you become one yourself. If we infer from what Neville says to Harry in PoA, JKR?s vampires are in some way affected by garlic. But, if they are NOT undead, can we then assume that they are not adversely affected by sunlight or crucifixes? I think Bram Stoker allowed his Count Dracula (who was hopelessly in love with another man's wife) to wander daytime London on occasion. If Snape is a vampire, it?s always possible that he was bitten some time after leaving Hogwarts. Possibly while he was a DE under Voldemort? Just like becoming a werewolf, winding up as a vampire would be pretty rough to admit to others. Easier to hide, but what if the only person willing to hire a vampire is Dumbledore? At the end of GoF, LV talks about re-building his army of those the WW fears, like giants and dementors. Werewolves and vampires (among others) would round out the mix quite nicely. SO, what if the mission Dumbledore asks Snape to undertake at the end of GoF is to contact the all the other vampires?? Silence, broken only by waves lapping against the hulls, falls on Theory Bay. ?Thoughts, anyone?? asks Frankie. ?BTW, please don?t touch Ziff?s ears-- he?s got water fleas in them, poor baby.? The poor baby shakes his mane again and tries to take the bit in large, pointy teeth. Frankie, who is aware her current mode of transport is none too reliable... And is not exactly sure (given canon evidence) whether Snape is a vampire or in love with Lily, but admits that both are very possible. From manda at qx.net Tue Aug 6 20:40:36 2002 From: manda at qx.net (Amanda Pressnell) Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2002 13:40:36 -0700 Subject: Amanda the Mystery In-Reply-To: <1028428146.831.84865.m12@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <3D4FD1D4.3014.265F1D3@localhost> No: HPFGUIDX 42190 > From: "magisterforan" > Just recently I noticed a misterious girl called Amanda, a kaukasian > young female of Harry Potters year and house(?) in the flying lesson. > > While I cant find a person of that name in any of the books, not even > with fulltext search, she gets a special treatment in the first movie: > While the class is greeted summarily, Madame Hooch, while passing her, > glances at her sideways and says: "Hello Amanda." During the sorting in the first book there is mention of Mandy Brocklehurst, a Ravenclaw. Perhaps it's her. In the first grade I rebelled and insisted on being called Amanda instead of Mandy. Mandy is a rather cutesy name, I thought. Maybe she felt the same way. :-) Amanda who actually prefers Manda these days - yes, I'm fickle. :-) -- http://www.MandaMia.com From bdmorrp at budget.state.ny.us Tue Aug 6 18:08:09 2002 From: bdmorrp at budget.state.ny.us (erisedstraeh2002) Date: Tue, 06 Aug 2002 18:08:09 -0000 Subject: St. Godric - Harry Parallels Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42191 I'm a new member, but I searched the archives and didn't find anything on this, so here goes - JKR said that there is a relationship between Godric Hollow and Godric Gryffindor, so I decided to investigate who St. Godric was, and I found a tremendous number of Harry parallels that I think strongly support the Heir of Gryffindor theory. St. Godric had supernatural visions, and the ability to know of events occurring hundreds or thousands of miles away. Sounds a lot like Harry's prescient dreams to me! St. Godric also had the gift of prophecy. He foretold the death of Bishop William of Durham and St. Thomas a Becket - whom he had never met. He died after foretelling his own death. During his Divination final in PoA, Harry accurately predicts that Buckbeak will not be executed, despite Trelawney's efforts to get him to change his mind. This is portrayed as Harry faking his way through the final, but maybe he really has the gift of prophecy and we'll see more in the next 3 books. The part that really gave me goosebumps (yes, I know I *should* get out more, but I'm HP obsessed!) was that St. Godric is represented in art with a *stag* by him. There are several stories about St. Godric and stags (see http://users.erols.com/saintpat/ss/0521.htm). In "St. Godric and the Hunted Stag," a hunting party is pursuing a particularly beautiful stag, which runs to St. Godric's hermitage for shelter. St. Godric lets the stag in, but the hunting party follows the stag's tracks and cuts through "the well-nigh impenetrable brushwood of thorns and briars" to find St. Godric. They ask Godric where the stag is, "but he would not be the betrayer of his guest." This strikes me as a strong Fidelius Charm parallel. However, unlike Wormtail, St. Godric doesn't tell the hunters where to find their prey, and the stag survives. And could the "well-nigh impenetrable brushwood of thorns and briars" be a Privet Dr. parallel - as the Lexicon tells us, a privet is a "bushy plant, often used as hedges?" And, of course, the stag - James' animagi and the patronus that Harry creates. One of the etymologies of "patronus" is "patron saint." St. Godric is perhaps James and Harry's patron saint? Or ancestor? There are other fascinating parallels - when St. Godric became a hermit, he is said to have been troubled by fiends and demons who took various shapes and forms (boggarts? dementors?). Before he became religious, St. Godric "lived a seafarer's life of the day," and was "known to drink, fight, chase women and con customers." It was the life of St. Cuthbert which influenced St. Godric to become religious (I looked up St. Cuthbert and couldn't find anything that appeared relevant - at least for now. But there is a Cuthbert Mockridge mentioned in passing in GoF). Even when Godric became religious, he had to struggle to control his impulses. St. Godric was 101 years old when he died, which makes me hope that Harry will have a long life, but since it didn't work for James, there may not be much to this theory! There are four songs that Godric wrote which "are the oldest pieces of English verse of which the musical settings survive, and are the oldest to show the use of devices of rhyme and measure instead of alliteration." Godric said he was taught these songs in visions. They can be found at http://www.lyrichord.come/refe/ref80051.html - if anyone reading knows how to translate Middle English (unfortunately I do not), there may be some clues here!! A few words are translated, one of which is "green", which is noted as meaning "youth." Any relationship to Lily and Harry's green eyes?? I'd love to hear what you think of all of this - Phyllis From rvotaw at i-55.com Tue Aug 6 20:25:27 2002 From: rvotaw at i-55.com (Richelle Votaw) Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2002 15:25:27 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: new DADA teacher References: <20020806175515.57235.qmail@web9203.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <00be01c23d87$6810b580$3ba3cdd1@istu757> No: HPFGUIDX 42192 ~ Aloha Moira writes: > Suggested so far: Molly Weasley, Fleur Delacoeur, Arabella Figg, Bill > or Charlie Weasley... Don't forget Neville's Gran. If it's *not* a female in book 5, what about someone else from the "old crowd? Mundungus Fletcher perhaps? We don't know much about him, but it does seem like he'd be a real character. Still, everywhere I look I get the definite impression JKR meant book 5 would have a female DADA teacher. > What about Madam Pomfrey? She's obviously good with healing, and as she > was around during the time of Voldemort, she's probably got > considerable experience with treating the effects of Dark Magic - and > she probably knows some "preventative medicine" as well. Any thoughts? Interesting possibility, though I think Harry'll be keeping her too busy in the hospital wing. Unless there's another good healer lurking somewhere. His injuries are getting progressively worse. Though there probably won't be any Hungarian Horntails in book 5, but you never know. Richelle From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Tue Aug 6 20:56:49 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Tue, 06 Aug 2002 20:56:49 -0000 Subject: Why Wasn't Hagrid Cleared? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42193 Phyllis wrote: > why does everyone (except Dumbledore) still believe Hagrid > opened the Chamber of Secrets 50 years ago when it subsequently > became clear that Tom Riddle was Voldemort and the true Heir of > Slytherin? As Professor Binns points out, only the Heir of Slytherin > can open the chamber. So once Riddle revealed himself as Voldemort > and the Heir of Slytherin, why didn't everyone put these pieces > together and realize that Hagrid was framed? No-one, or at least very few people, know that Voldemort is the Heir of Slytherin, and even less people know that he was once Riddle. To quote: (Sp. Ed. CoS, ch.18, liberal translation) "Very few know that Lord Voldemort was called before Tom Riddle. [...] Almost no-one related Lord Voldemort with the intelligent and charming boy that won the Annual Price". As you can see, there is not a single reference to the Heir here, so I'd imagine that's even less known. For most people, there could be any number of Heirs going around (just check the list. The listees have worked up lots of theories to have even more heirs running around). What is almost sure is that no-one in the MoM (Ministry of Magic) knows that Voldemort attended school when the chamber was open, at least prior to CoS, and thus there is no way Hagrid could have been cleared. Voldemort did not "reveal" himself as Riddle or the Heir of Slytherin: he did not make any public declarations, nor did he leave very many people alive to tell stories, so Hagrid, at the beggining of GoF, is still the culprit to the eyes of MoM justice. Strangely enough, one of the few people that might now who Voldemort is is Ollivander, since he knows the wand that he sold him. Before you ask, though, there are two ways out of this. Voldemort may have bought the wand just before iniciating the Reign of Terror, when he was not yet persecuted by justice (in which case Ollivander doesn't know), or Dumbledore told Ollivander when he was looking for information about Voldemort, in this case the sort of wand he uses. The conversation could have gone like this: Dumbledore: Hello, Ollivcander, have you sold lately a wand to one by the name Voldemort? Ollivander: No , I haven't. Who's he? D: I have reason to believe that he is responsible for the -insert V's first victim-'s death. Anyway, can you tell me what wand you sold to Riddle? Before you ask, yes, it could be him. O: Yes, I remember, it was one of the two wands I created with Fawkes's feather. D: Thanks. Please keep it a secret. It's going to be difficult to stop him as it is. Oh, and if you ever sell the other one, tell me. O: Don't worry, I will -on both counts. > The only way I can make this make sense is if Dumbledore is the only > one who knows that Riddle is Voldemort. But if Dumbledore's the only > one who knows, how did he find out something that no one else knows, > and why did he keep it a secret? I firmly believe that Dumbledore and Voldemort have been playing a very dangerous sort of war: a secret war, in which information is the prime weapon. Dumbledore knew, during the Reign of Terror, that he could trust no-one, especially the people in charge of the MoM, which was probably the first place visited by the Imperius-armed deatheaters, and where everyone was subjugated, incopetent, or both. Thus, when he discovered the transformation of his prime student (which he already suspected was somewhat evil) into Lord Voldemort, he did not tell anyone but his closest allies. How did he discover it? The Reign of Terror is a terrorist campaign, as we all know. To face a terrorist group, there are two opposed paths that can be taken. One is naked force -path taken by the MoM- and the other is knowing your enemy, and destroying it from within -path taken by Dumbledore. I'd imagine that one of the first things Dumbledore set his spies to work on was the identity of this new dark wizard who called himself Lord Voldemort. Another posibility is that Dumbledore, who always seems to know what's going on at Hogwarts, overheard Riddle's friends talking to him using that title, and he just put two and two toghether. I don't really like this explanation. > Also, on p. 314 (Scholastic ed.), > Riddle tells Harry that Voldemort "was a name I was already using at > Hogwarts, to my most intimate friends only, of course." Are we to > assume that this was a secret these "intimate friends" kept for 50 > years? Especially since some of them renounced Voldemort when he > fell from power? What happened to his school friends, then? Why didn't they tell anyone? We don't know for sure that they joined Voldemort's ranks. They knew too much, and Voldemort does not normally people who know too much to live (nor do any other Evil overlords, normally). Evidently, they could relate him to the old Riddle. If they did join, they could've been hit by memory-blocking courses. Or they died painful deaths while they where looking for dark powers, and only the most powerful, Riddle, survived the search. Finally, maybe there were people in the Deatheaters who knew the Riddle story, but when Voldemort fell, they simulated having been imperioed, and got of lighter than by trying to explain the blood-hungry officials of the MoM stories about Voldemort. After all, if he's dead, no-one cares who he had been before becoming Voldemort, and if he's somehow survived -as all of them suspected he might have- and he ever made a return, he would not be happy about any of his Deatheaters telling the MoM his secrets. And an unhappy Voldemort is not something any of the DE wanted to experience personally. Don't forget that not a single DE abandoned Voldemort. They fear him too much to double-cross him (except Snape), even if he looks dead. Finally, you suggest that some of his friends might have spilled the beans before the Reign of Terror. This makes even less sense. I don't think anyone would go around telling people the secret names his friends had in school, and even if he did, no-one would listen to him. > Also, why would Hagrid be sent to Azkaban during the second wave of > attacks when he wasn't sent there the first time (when there was > presumably more compelling evidence against him)? Are we to presume > that one has to be a certain age in order to be sent to Azkaban, and > Hagrid was too young the first time? > > Phyllis What is absolutely sure is that 50 years ago, the laws were much lighter than in the post-Reign of Terror WW. You couldn't be AKed on suspicion of being a DE, there were no Dementors at Azkaban, etc. Apart from the fact that you don't normally send a 15-year-old to jail, Hagrid might have been left out of it on the promise that he would never open it again -but was nonetheless prevented from ever becoming a wizard. When the attacks started in CoS, those brick-brained at the MoM decided to injail Hagrid, just in case. And of course, the laws allowed it without any sort of trial. Hope that helps, Grey Wolf From slinkie at nids.se Tue Aug 6 21:03:46 2002 From: slinkie at nids.se (eledhwen_0) Date: Tue, 06 Aug 2002 21:03:46 -0000 Subject: Would Lily have been spared? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42194 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "elvishooked" wrote: > > Okay, that was not really my point - not that Voldemort *really > wanted* to spare Lily. Only that it didn't seem important to him if > she lived or died. He was going for James and Harry (he *really > wanted* THEM to die) and only killed Lily because she was in his way > to get to Harry... > Inge We know that he wanted Harry dead, but do we really know that he wanted James dead. James went to try to hold Voldemort of, thus he became an obstruction. Isn't it possible that Voldemort killed James simply because he was in the way, just like Lily. If I am mistaken and there is some evidence that states that Voldemort specifically wanted James dead I would really like to know. Eledhwen From xp39c at yahoo.com Tue Aug 6 21:21:23 2002 From: xp39c at yahoo.com (xp39c) Date: Tue, 06 Aug 2002 21:21:23 -0000 Subject: Amanda the Mystery In-Reply-To: <3D4FD1D4.3014.265F1D3@localhost> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42195 "magisterforan" wrote: > > Just recently I noticed a misterious girl called Amanda, a kaukasian > > young female of Harry Potters year and house(?) in the flying lesson. > > > > While I cant find a person of that name in any of the books, not even > > with fulltext search, she gets a special treatment in the first movie: > > While the class is greeted summarily, Madame Hooch, while passing her, > > glances at her sideways and says: "Hello Amanda." then Manda wrote: > During the sorting in the first book there is mention of Mandy Brocklehurst, a Ravenclaw. > Perhaps it's her. In the first grade I rebelled and insisted on being called Amanda instead of > Mandy. Mandy is a rather cutesy name, I thought. Maybe she felt the same way. :-) It was Gryffindors and Slytherins in that lesson, so it couldn't have been a Ravenclaw. But what if Amanda were one of the two unidentified Gryffindor girls that are supposed to exist? --Hei Lun, back from vacation from Maine (a.k.a land of cheaper seafood, nicer people, and better service) From rvotaw at i-55.com Tue Aug 6 21:32:59 2002 From: rvotaw at i-55.com (Richelle Votaw) Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2002 16:32:59 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Would Lily have been spared? References: Message-ID: <001401c23d90$d78ca960$c39fcdd1@istu757> No: HPFGUIDX 42196 Eledhwen writes: > We know that he wanted Harry dead, but do we really know that he > wanted James dead. James went to try to hold Voldemort of, thus he > became an obstruction. Isn't it possible that Voldemort killed James > simply because he was in the way, just like Lily. If I am mistaken > and there is some evidence that states that Voldemort specifically > wanted James dead I would really like to know. Well, I've always gotten that from SS/PS page 294, Voldemort says "I killed your father first, and he put up a courageous fight ... but your mother needn't have died." It implies that there was no intent to kill Lily, but James would've died anyway. Anyone else have something different? Richelle From rvotaw at i-55.com Tue Aug 6 21:34:23 2002 From: rvotaw at i-55.com (Richelle Votaw) Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2002 16:34:23 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Amanda the Mystery References: Message-ID: <001d01c23d91$0903ee40$c39fcdd1@istu757> No: HPFGUIDX 42197 Hei Lun writes: > It was Gryffindors and Slytherins in that lesson, so it couldn't have > been a Ravenclaw. But what if Amanda were one of the two > unidentified Gryffindor girls that are supposed to exist? Actually, since the only time Amanda is mentioned is in the movie, she could be a Ravenclaw. There are Ravenclaws at the flying lesson in the movie. Not in the book, but in the movie. And of course, there is no Amanda mentioned in the book, only in the movie. Richelle From manic1066 at yahoo.com Tue Aug 6 18:54:35 2002 From: manic1066 at yahoo.com (manic) Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2002 11:54:35 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] TBAY: Werewolves, Vampires and Secret Missions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020806185435.88332.qmail@web10704.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 42198 --- frankielee242 wrote: > If he bites anyone (without killing and eating them, > that is), they too will become werewolves. If the pathogen is in the > werewolves' saliva, would that put the ka-bosh on "swapping spit" or > does the saliva have to come into direct contact with the > bloodstream? Wouldn't Lupin have to be in werewolf form for the other person to be affected by the bite? Perhaps it's just he has to have transformed for the bite to be a transmutative factor. If it were otherwise Dumbledore would have never of let him anywhere near students, the risk would be too great. > > If Snape is a vampire, I think this is highly unlikely. Most vampire mythologies agree that vampires cannot go out during the day. Didn't Snape referee a Quidditch match during the daytime? He doesn't spend all his time locked in the dungeons. And hi! I'm new to the list. ===== manic whacking the world a safe place... http://www.livejournal.com/users/manic1066/ __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better http://health.yahoo.com From gina_d at mland.gr Tue Aug 6 20:00:28 2002 From: gina_d at mland.gr (gina_malfoy) Date: Tue, 06 Aug 2002 20:00:28 -0000 Subject: Bill as the new DADA teacher In-Reply-To: <008701c23d51$c02fd240$33a1cdd1@istu757> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42199 Richelle wrote: > Bill's not female though, isn't it confirmed that the new DADA teacher will > be female? Are you sure it's confirmed? Then how come there were all those posts a while ago about Snape getting the DADA job? mrflynn6 wrote: > The person I thought would "surprise" us as DADA teacher would be > Molly Weasley. She would be a trusted person and would look after > Harry. We don't know what she did to fight Voldermort as part of > the "old crowd". Richelle: > That would be something. She is female, she is trusted, she would > definitely look out for Harry. She would surely have been a part of the > fight against Voldemort somehow. She may be more qualified than we realize. > But can you imagine, she'd be trying to tuck Harry in at night, dusting > Ron's robes off in front of class, and so on. Would add a few touching > funny moments! My money's still on Mrs. Figg, though. At the moment. me: I agree--Molly will be a "surprise". If she actually gets the job though, then I do hope she's more qualified than we realise, because with Voldemort back Hogwarts and especially Harry definitely need a really good DADA teacher. Yes, I suppose she would add a few funny moments, but then so did Lockhart. Was he a capable teacher though? I don't think so. Of course, she can't be that bad, since she helped fight Voldemort and all and I believe there's more to Molly and the other Weasleys, that's why I can picture one of them in this job and therefore close to Harry. Gina From bdmorrp at budget.state.ny.us Tue Aug 6 20:04:00 2002 From: bdmorrp at budget.state.ny.us (erisedstraeh2002) Date: Tue, 06 Aug 2002 20:04:00 -0000 Subject: St. Godric - Harry Parallels (Correction of Internet Address) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42200 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "erisedstraeh2002" wrote: > There are four songs that Godric wrote which "are the oldest pieces > of English verse of which the musical settings survive, and are the > oldest to show the use of devices of rhyme and measure instead of > alliteration." Godric said he was taught these songs in visions. > They can be found at http://www.lyrichord.come/refe/ref80051.html - If there is still time for the mods to retract my first correction, I'd appreciate it - the correct internet address should be: http://www.lyrichord.com/refe/ref8005l.html It's the lowercase letter "l" after "ref8005", not the number "1". My apologies for any confusion - Phyllis From slinkie at nids.se Tue Aug 6 21:34:55 2002 From: slinkie at nids.se (eledhwen_0) Date: Tue, 06 Aug 2002 21:34:55 -0000 Subject: Would Lily have been spared? In-Reply-To: <001401c23d90$d78ca960$c39fcdd1@istu757> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42201 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Richelle Votaw" wrote: > Eledhwen writes: > > > We know that he wanted Harry dead, but do we really know that he > > wanted James dead. James went to try to hold Voldemort of, thus he > > became an obstruction. Isn't it possible that Voldemort killed James > > simply because he was in the way, just like Lily. If I am mistaken > > and there is some evidence that states that Voldemort specifically > > wanted James dead I would really like to know. > > Well, I've always gotten that from SS/PS page 294, Voldemort says "I killed > your father first, and he put up a courageous fight ... but your mother > needn't have died." It implies that there was no intent to kill Lily, but > James would've died anyway. Anyone else have something different? > > Richelle I might be streching here, but couldn't James have been killed because he put up a courageous fight thus getting in the way, but it might have been the way you say too, it does make sense. Eledhwen From angelsound2001 at yahoo.com Tue Aug 6 21:03:37 2002 From: angelsound2001 at yahoo.com (angelsound2001 at yahoo.com) Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2002 14:03:37 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Would Lily have been spared?/AK curse Message-ID: <20020806210337.98013.qmail@web10803.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 42202 I think canon points to Lily *not* having been a primary target of Voldemort's. In PS/SS (Scholastic p. 294), Voldemort says: "...but your mother neednt have died...she was trying to protect you..." Dunno why he'd bother to make that up. Well, unless, of course, it's to set up his next line, which is "Now give me the Stone, unless you want her to have died in vain." OK, I take it back. Can't trust him, can we? Still, this line paired with "Stand aside, you silly girl" in Harrys dementor-induced memories are the closest canon comes to confirming that Lily was not originally a target. The fact remains that killing her anyway because she became an annoyance is totally consistent with Voldemort's character. ------------------------------ Roo suggests that Voldemort invented Avada Kedavra, thus explaining why instances of its being blocked are unheard of. One problem: How, then, would the Aurors have learned it? We know they were given license to use lethal force. We don't necessarily know that AK is part of the Aurors' repertoire. But nobody was surprised that (Fake!)Moody knew how to cast it. If, on the other hand, it was known that only DEs knew how to cast AK, wouldnt that have blown Fake!Moodys cover? Roo's theory could still work. Perhaps Aurors learned the AK curse from DEs while undercover...? *shrug* --Raven __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better http://health.yahoo.com From psychchick04 at yahoo.com Tue Aug 6 21:43:13 2002 From: psychchick04 at yahoo.com (Jacqueline Hendries) Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2002 14:43:13 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] TBAY: Werewolves, Vampires and Secret Missions In-Reply-To: <20020806185435.88332.qmail@web10704.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20020806214313.6060.qmail@web9208.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 42203 Frankie Lee wrote: > > If Snape is a vampire, then Manic responded: > I think this is highly unlikely. Most vampire mythologies agree that > vampires cannot go out during the day. Didn't Snape referee a > Quidditch > match during the daytime? He doesn't spend all his time locked in the > dungeons. Courtesy of my friend Houie: Snape can't be a vampire, because vampires are "allergic" to wormwood. :) ~ Aloha ===== jackie04 at brandeis.edu __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better http://health.yahoo.com From lilac_bearry at yahoo.com Tue Aug 6 21:52:14 2002 From: lilac_bearry at yahoo.com (Lilac) Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2002 14:52:14 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Harry's Putative Death (Narnia?) Message-ID: <20020806215214.29949.qmail@web40303.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 42204 Ellen, The Pottering Beekeeper, said: << in a train crash. (Well, except for those who make it back to Narnia for the final days- and they are dead in this world.) I wonder, given that Dumbledore has said that death is just another great adventure, if Rowling didn't have Narnia in mind when Harry was born.>>> And, speaking of the next great adventure... "....the things that began to happen after that were so great and beautiful that I cannot write them. And for us this is the end of all the stories, and we can most truly say that they lived happily ever after. But for them it was only the beginning of the real story. All their life in this world and all their adventures in Narnia had only been the cover and the title page: now at last they were beginning Chapter one of the Great Story which no one on earth has read: which goes on forever: in which every chapter is better than the one before."(Final paragraph, "The Last Battle", Book *7* of the Narnia series) Hmmm....book 7, a final battle and a tragic train crash...all those characters we grew to love open up that great novel in the sky "where every chapter is better than the one before"... IMHO, If JKR chooses to kill off one of the HRH Trinity, then let them all (the main characters) "cross over" to the next great adventure, so they can all be together with those they love. Well, I hope she doesn't, but it worked for Lewis anyway... Lilac ("The term is over: the holidays have begun. The dream is ended: this is the morning." pg. 228 The Last Battle) ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~ "Tut, tut --- hardly any of you remembered that my favorite color is *lilac*. I say so in Year with the Yeti." --Gilderoy Lockhart, COS --------------------------------- Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Tue Aug 6 22:06:20 2002 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (bboy_mn) Date: Tue, 06 Aug 2002 22:06:20 -0000 Subject: Who was witness to the killing of James and Lily? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42205 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "elvishooked" wrote: . .. Scroll down for message .. . . . . . . . .. Scroll down for message .. . . . . . . . . Inge Wrote: > I have so many (stupid) questions - hoping somebody can clear > up some of them for me ;-) > > On the night that Voldemort killed James and Lily - who was > actually present at the house to tell what really happened? > I dont recall having read of anyone except James, Lily, Harry > and Voldemort being in the house when they were killed. So who > actually TOLD the story of what happened? > > How is it that everybody knows that Lily sacrificed her self > to protect Harry? She and James died. Harry didnt remember > anything and Voldemort "ran". Who told Dumbledore (and everyone > else) what exactly went on in that house? > > Inge bboy_mn Responds: Don't you ever watch TV? Crime scenes and even arson scenes serve very very well to reconstruct the events of the crime. The location and position of Lilly's body would have given clues about how and why she died. Crime scene investigators can do an amazingly accurate job. Frequently, criminals are found and convicted based on crime scene evidence. Sorry, I could probably explain this better than I am, but right now my brain is running at about half speed. bboy_mn From bard7696 at aol.com Tue Aug 6 22:07:10 2002 From: bard7696 at aol.com (darrin_burnett) Date: Tue, 06 Aug 2002 22:07:10 -0000 Subject: Would Lily have been spared?/AK curse In-Reply-To: <20020806210337.98013.qmail@web10803.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42206 ---Raven wrote: > > Still, this line paired with "Stand aside, you silly > girl" in Harry's dementor-induced memories are the > closest canon comes to confirming that Lily was not > originally a target. > > The fact remains that killing her anyway because she > became an annoyance is totally consistent with > Voldemort's character. I have no problem believing Lily wasn't originally a target and just got in the way. Where I bog down is with the idea that V-Mort went in there with the idea of specifically sparing her and the ideas floated for this have been because she's related to him, or the love interest of one of his DEs (Snape, specifically) and probably others I don't know about. If he wanted to spare her, he could have. Just cast Crucio, paralyze her with pain, roll her over and then boom, free shot at Harry. Get rid of Crucio as you walk out the door and then disparate away. Darrin -- At least that's how I'd do it. From kellybroughton at yahoo.com Tue Aug 6 22:34:50 2002 From: kellybroughton at yahoo.com (kelly broughton) Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2002 15:34:50 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Would Lily have been spared? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020806223450.43376.qmail@web21110.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 42207 --- darrin_burnett wrote: > > My point remains that V-Mort, had he wanted to move Lily without > hurting her (permanently), he could have. And if he wanted to because > she's his daughter, or the love of Snape's life, or the love of > Wormtail's life, or the Animagus second cousin to Voldemort's pet > hamster, or WHATEVER the theory is, then he should have been able to. > > > > 2) Voldemort was planning to kill Lily. He just let her for dessert > out > of sheer cruelty, or simply because he wasn't sure he had > enough energy left to AK twice, and he selected Harry (It turns out > that he did, in fact, have enough, but that's another story). > > Maybe Vmort DID have every intention of sparing Lily (at least temporarily), for these possible reasons: 1. He just wanted to torture her in the worst way possible, by forcing her to watch her son die, before going on to kill her. You know, like the sadist he is. 2. Or maybe he was going to rape her, and force her to conceive HIS spawn- this happens in nature all the time (ex., lions. A new male comes along and kills all the cubs, forcing the females in the pride to go into early estrus, so he can mate with them and they bear his offspring.) I assume that before his downfall, his body was in good working order. This thread may remind (as I hope it does) most of you about the 'Sexuality in the Graveyard Scene' thread we had going about a month or so ago, can't really recall when; I did find it very interesting. Or maybe: she was pregnant with a second child. -kel __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better http://health.yahoo.com From lee.farley at ntlworld.com Tue Aug 6 22:44:45 2002 From: lee.farley at ntlworld.com (LD) Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2002 23:44:45 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Dumbledore's "triumph" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c23d9a$dd4f87f0$68e96bd5@mayhem> No: HPFGUIDX 42208 I prefer to think of the gleam in Dumbledore's eye as one of anticipation. Dumbledore defeated Grindelwald whilst he was teaching at Hogwarts. He certainly wasn't asked to do it as part of his studies, so perhaps these sorts of secretive Wizarding Wars are what gets his metaphorical rocks off. Dumbledore seems to me the type of guy that lives for the chase. He wants Voldemort to get to full strength so that when he is finally defeated, it's not a hollow victory. Capturing Vapourmort would do no good. Sure he'd still be a hero, but wheres the fun in battling a noxious gas? Dumbledore wants a tense, thrilling, nail-biting, rickety-catwalk-over-a-river-of-molten-lava-with-dragons-battling-overhe ad kind of victory. Dumbledore is a bang addict, like all of us ;) -LD From lilac_bearry at yahoo.com Tue Aug 6 23:04:30 2002 From: lilac_bearry at yahoo.com (Lilac) Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2002 16:04:30 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [FILK] Thick Bottomed Cauldrons Message-ID: <20020806230430.49475.qmail@web40307.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 42209 "Thick Bottomed Cauldrons" to the tune of "Fat Bottomed Girls" by Queen [a/n: Ever since I've first read GOF, I've hummed the original song whenever I read the phrase "thick bottomed cauldrons". Now that I'm on a filking kick, I finally "filked" it for all it was worth! What makes this song so funny to me is that the style is *so* not Percy -- lots of heavy rock-n-roll guitar!] Dedicated to Rick. (THE SCENE: Percy is in his room, working on his reports for the Department of International Magical Cooperation, pauses to think about how this job is just the first step on the ladder that will lead him to power within the Ministry of Magic...) I got to take reports home tonight, Ah, and study them by my wand-light! I'm gonna earn some of Crouch's clout! Thick bottomed cauldrons help the Magic world go round! (GUITAR SOLO) (Hey!) I was just a skinny lad. I was always good, not bad, But there's power to be had at the Ministry -Huh! Perfect Prefect years five/six, But to fully get my kicks, Dumbledore had to make Head Boy out of me. (Hey!) (MORE GUITAR) (Woooo!) I've been working hard all day, These reports won't let me play, Standardizing cauldron thickness for my pay. But I'd rather work on this (They see me a tad "obsessed") Than spend time with all those nutters like the twins. (C'mon!) Oh, charts and graphs to take home tonight! Oh, I'll study them by candlelight! Oh, and I'll give it all I've got Thick bottomed cauldrons will make me a "Prefect Who Gained Power"! Thick bottomed cauldrons will make me a "Prefect Who Gained Power"! (Hey listen here...) Now this teeny, tiny home Fills me with the urge to roam; *Ain't* no brainy types in this locality ( I mean *There are*). But my job gives me this pleasure, Crunching numbers for my treasure, Making money climbing up at the Ministry. (Now get this...) Oh, (I know) more reports to read tonight (please!) Oh, down beside the dim firelight! Oh, it just makes me want to shout, "Thick bottomed cauldrons will make this Wizard go world-round!" "Thick bottomed cauldrons will make this Wizard go world-round!" (PERCY IS PLAYING A BROOM LIKE A GUITAR DURING THIS PART...) Get on your brooms and fly! Ooh yeah oh yeah them thick-bottomed cauldrons! Thick bottomed cauldrons...Thick bottomed cauldrons...Yeah yeah yeah Alright, ride 'em, c'mon...Thick bottomed cauldrons...yes yes! (Punctuating the last three beats by slamming a broom hard on the floor, Percy soon realizes the mess he's made with the now twig-less broom. After he takes a few calming breaths, he pushes his crooked glasses back on his nose, grabs his wand to repair the broom, then goes back to finishing the report.) ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~ "Tut, tut --- hardly any of you remembered that my favorite color is *lilac*. I say so in Year with the Yeti." --Gilderoy Lockhart, COS --------------------------------- Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From SnapesSlytherin at aol.com Tue Aug 6 23:40:00 2002 From: SnapesSlytherin at aol.com (SnapesSlytherin at aol.com) Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2002 19:40:00 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape's "Outcast" Status Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42210 In a message dated 8/5/02 7:55:34 PM Eastern Daylight Time, weiss145 at aol.com writes: > I really don't think all the bullies in the school are from Slytherin. I > could see the Weasley twins being tremendously cruel to first year and who > says MWPP were such great guys? I don't think that it's possible that *all* the bullies are in Slytherin - "bully" is a subjective word. If the Weasley twins were cruel to someone, I don't think that they would even realize it. Harry kinda bullies the Creevey brothers - I know he thinks they're annoying but they worship the castle ground he walks on! MWPP are portrayed as great because we see the book as Harry does, and his dad was one of them. I think by the "prank" they played on Severus (it was much more than a "prank" IMHO, a "prank" would be to tie his shoelaces together or something of that nature, what they did could've easily gotten Severus *killed*!) shows that they weren't perfect. MWPP were popular (as least MPP) and we all remember the popular kids who played "pranks" and were praised. ~*~*~Talia Dawn~*~*~ A truly evil Slytherin. (Who was just watching a Behind the Scenes things for The Two Towers and was thinking about a parallel between Wormtail and the character Wormtongue.) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk Wed Aug 7 00:02:47 2002 From: pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk (bluesqueak) Date: Wed, 07 Aug 2002 00:02:47 -0000 Subject: Who was witness to the killing of James and Lily? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42211 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "elvishooked" wrote: Inge writes: > I have so many (stupid) questions - hoping somebody can clear up > some of them for me ;-) > On the night that Voldemort killed James and Lily - who was > actually present at the house to tell what really happened? Oooh, *wouldn't* we like to know! [grin] http://www.i2k.com/~svderark/lexicon/timeline_potters.html has the canon time line for those events. If you read it, you'll find that we simply haven't yet been told the full sequence of events. [Grey Wolf has remarked that we learnt more about the events on That Night from the film than we have from the first four books] > I dont recall having read of anyone except James, Lily, Harry and > Voldemort being in the house when they were killed. So who actually > TOLD the story of what happened? > How is it that everybody knows that Lily sacrificed her self to > protect Harry? She and James died. Harry didnt remember anything > and Voldemort "ran". Who told Dumbledore (and everyone else) what > exactly went on in that house? One possibility would be that the Potter's hideout was magically 'bugged' so that Dumbledore could see anything happening in the house - but the attack by Voldemort happened too quickly for any reinforcements to get there in time. My bet would be that the voice Harry heard telling Lily to run wasn't James [we do not see James die in That Which Must Not Be Mentioned, and that particular scene was specifically approved by JKR so it would fit in with as yet unrevealed plotlines] - and this is why Lupin was so surprised (PoA p. 178 UK hardback) when Harry told him he heard James. James probably died somewhere outside the house; it was Someone Else inside the house that Harry heard. Whoever the Someone Else was, they survived and were able to contact Dumbledore and tell him what happened. My current theory is 'it wuz Snape' - though the problem with this is the question of why Harry wouldn't have recognised Snape's voice. However, 'it wuz Snape' is the simplest solution to several other problems. I think Snape found out that the Secret Keeper had betrayed the Potters hiding place too late for Dumbledore to have time to warn the Potters, had to go straight to the Potters (having told Dumbledore that's what he was doing), arriving seconds before Voldemort. James tries to stop Voldemort outside the house, Snape runs inside, shouts to Lily to take Harry and run, tries to hold Voldemort off (it's been established that Snape's GOOD at dueling); and does NOT get AK'd because: Possibility A: Voldemort really gets off on torturing disloyal DE's [though not enough to ever distract him from the business in hand] and 'saves Snape for later', so to speak, immobilising him with some other spell. Possibility B: Lollipops (Snape was in love with Lily ) is not only 100% accurate, but was well known to Voldemort. Voldemort reckons that if he spares Lily, his extremely useful potions expert, obviously willing to die to save Lily, is going to be prepared to do absolutely *anything* to keep Lily alive and uncrucio'd. Which could come in very handy... Possibility B, of course, neatly explains why Voldemort tries to get Lily to stand aside. Both Possibilities A and B assume that Snape only then survived because Harry somehow managed to turn Voldemort into a wisp of noxious gas. Dumbledore gets the message about the Potters too late to send reinforcements, but he sends Hagrid to see if anyone survived. Hagrid finds the ruined house, starts searching in the rubble, finds a live Snape who tells him what happened [Snape heard everything]. They *both* find Harry. Snape tells Hagrid to say nothing about his being there, and leaves Hagrid literally holding the baby. 'Sirius Black' then turns up; after that other Wizards turn up (to perform any needed Memory Charms on the Muggles, or just to find out what happens)and Hagrid tells them what Snape has told him (without revealing his source). Hence the celebrations at the start of PS/SS, because the news spreads like wildfire. This is why only Voldemort on the Dark Side seems to realise that Snape is no longer loyal. Sirius Black knows that Pettigrew was the Secret Keeper because most of the inmates of Azkaban know it - but no DE seems to scream curses on the spy Snape. As far as the DE's in Azkaban are concerned, Snape's cover seems to be intact. (Presumably, the fact that he convinced everyone at the Post-Voldemort trials of his innocence - see GoF p. 513 UK hardback - is simply seen as a really nifty bit of footwork by DE's such as Karkaroff ) Voldemort, on the other hand, uses Quirrel to get into Hogwarts - NOT Snape, who's already there. Quirrelmort seems completely unsurprised that Snape tried to save Harry Potter's life, or stop Voldemort from stealing the stone - hardly the sorts of things a loyal DE would do (see Chapter 17 in PS/SS). But if Voldemort had found out Snape was a spy BEFORE the attack on the Potters, why is Snape still breathing (or alternatively still not breathing in an undead-but-mobile fashion)? If Snape is the 'one who I believe has left me forever' then Voldemort knows all about him working for Dumbledore. So when did he find out Snape had 'left him forever'? Just before finding himself corporeally challenged? 'It wuz Snape' would also explain why HAGRID is so convinced Snape is on Dumbledore's side. Hagrid's description of events is: "It was me what rescued Harry from Lily an' James' house after they was killed! Jus' got him outta the ruins, poor little thing..." [PoA UK hardback, p153] Now it sounds entirely in keeping with Hagrid's use of language that he would miss out the 'I' at the beginning of the second sentence, but if you read the whole rescue story [pp 153 - 154] that is the *only* sentence where Hagrid misses out an 'I' or a 'me'. So, Hagrid rescued Harry [yup, a Snape who'd been immobilised by Voldemort and then had a house fall on top of him was unlikely to be in any state to rescue anybody], but avoids saying that he got Harry out of the ruins by himself. Is that because when he was rescuing Harry he found Snape first and they *both* pulled Harry out of the ruins? It would also explain why Hagrid's so embarrassed when Harry is complaining that Snape really hates him [PS/SS p. 105]. He knows a really good argument for Snape NOT hating Harry, and for some reason we don't yet know, he can't use it. Why has Harry never been told Snape was there? Well, even if it wasn't Snape, but was Someone Else, we still have a problem of 'why hasn't Harry been told'? But we *know* Dumbledore is refusing to tell Harry things about Snape. He neatly avoids saying 'Snape hates you' in PS/SS [p. 217] and he won't tell Harry why he knows Snape no longer supports Voldemort. [ GoF p. 524 UK hardback]. Not telling Harry there was Someone Else present when his parents were killed fits right in with - the secrets surrounding Snape. Yup, 'it wuz Snape'. There you are, you see, Inge. You ask a stupid question and get a complicated theory in reply. Welcome to the list! [grin] Pip Squeak! (purveyor of complicated theories to the list) From tmarends at yahoo.com Wed Aug 7 00:21:59 2002 From: tmarends at yahoo.com (tmarends) Date: Wed, 07 Aug 2002 00:21:59 -0000 Subject: Who was witness to the killing of James and Lily? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42212 Pip wrote: > > My bet would be that the voice Harry heard telling Lily to run wasn't > James [we do not see James die in That Which Must Not Be Mentioned, > and that particular scene was specifically approved by JKR so it > would fit in with as yet unrevealed plotlines] - and this is why > Lupin was so surprised (PoA p. 178 UK hardback) when Harry told him > he heard James. James probably died somewhere outside the house; it > was Someone Else inside the house that Harry heard. > > Whoever the Someone Else was, they survived and were able to contact > Dumbledore and tell him what happened. > > My current theory is 'it wuz Snape' - though the problem with this is > the question of why Harry wouldn't have recognised Snape's voice. > However, 'it wuz Snape' is the simplest solution to several other > problems. > Now me: Although an interesting theory, I have reason to doubt it was Snape who could have been in the house when Lily was killed and the AK on Harry backfired. Assuming it wasn't James and he died elsewhere, I have a different theory on who could have been in the house. Peter Petigrew. He was the secret keeper. He was in cahoots with Voldemort. Harry heard "Lily, take Harry and go! It's him! Go! I'll hold him off---" (POA, pg 240 US/hb) while learning the patronus with the boggart. Harry assumed it was his father, but it could have been anybody on Voldemort's side whom the Potter's trusted. That's why I think if it wasn't James' voice he heard, it must have been Peter's. Tim A. From rvotaw at i-55.com Wed Aug 7 00:40:08 2002 From: rvotaw at i-55.com (Richelle Votaw) Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2002 19:40:08 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] TBAY: Werewolves, Vampires and Secret Missions References: <20020806185435.88332.qmail@web10704.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <002401c23daa$fbd0e060$b29ccdd1@istu757> No: HPFGUIDX 42213 Manic writes: > Wouldn't Lupin have to be in werewolf form for the other person to be > affected by the bite? Perhaps it's just he has to have transformed for > the bite to be a transmutative factor. If it were otherwise Dumbledore > would have never of let him anywhere near students, the risk would be > too great. Probably would have to be in werewolf form. Though I can't for the life of me see why Lupin would want to bite anyone when he's not transformed. I would think it still safe for Dumbledore to let him near students. Unless, of course, Dumbledore has had problems before with professors biting students. ;) Though he did have one turning students into ferrets. Though that didn't happen until later on. :) > > If Snape is a vampire, > > I think this is highly unlikely. Most vampire mythologies agree that > vampires cannot go out during the day. Didn't Snape referee a Quidditch > match during the daytime? He doesn't spend all his time locked in the > dungeons. No, but if he's part vampire I don't see why it's not possible. And if there's a potion for Lupin I'm sure Snape could whip up something for himself to be able to go out for a while. Richelle From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Wed Aug 7 00:38:34 2002 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (bboy_mn) Date: Wed, 07 Aug 2002 00:38:34 -0000 Subject: Who was witness to the killing of James and Lily? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42214 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "tmarends" wrote: > Pip wrote: > > > > My bet would be that the voice Harry heard telling Lily to > > run wasn't James [we do not see James die in That Which Must > > Not Be Mentioned, and that particular scene was specifically > > approved by JKR so it would fit in with as yet unrevealed > > plotlines] - and this is why Lupin was so surprised (PoA p. > > 178 UK hardback) when Harry told him he heard James. James > > probably died somewhere outside the house; it was Someone > > Else inside the house that Harry heard. > > > > Whoever the Someone Else was, they survived and were able to > > contact Dumbledore and tell him what happened. > > > > My current theory is 'it wuz Snape' - though the problem with > > this is the question of why Harry wouldn't have recognised > > Snape's voice. However, 'it wuz Snape' is the simplest solution > > to several other problems. > > > > Now Rim A.: > > Although an interesting theory, I have reason to doubt it was Snape > who could have been in the house when Lily was killed and the AK on > Harry backfired. Assuming it wasn't James and he died elsewhere, I > have a different theory on who could have been in the house. Peter > Petigrew. He was the secret keeper. He was in cahoots with > Voldemort. Harry heard "Lily, take Harry and go! It's him! Go! > I'll hold him off---" (POA, pg 240 US/hb) while learning the patronus > with the boggart. Harry assumed it was his father, but it could have > been anybody on Voldemort's side whom the Potter's trusted. That's > why I think if it wasn't James' voice he heard, it must have been > Peter's. > > Tim A. From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Wed Aug 7 00:50:34 2002 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (bboy_mn) Date: Wed, 07 Aug 2002 00:50:34 -0000 Subject: Who was witness to the killing [SORRY]? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42215 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "bboy_mn" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "tmarends" wrote: > > Pip wrote: > > > > > > My bet would be that the voice Harry heard telling Lily to > > > run wasn't James [we do not see James die in That Which Must > > > Not Be Mentioned, and that particular scene was specifically > > > approved by JKR so it would fit in with as yet unrevealed > > > plotlines] - and this is why Lupin was so surprised (PoA p. > > > 178 UK hardback) when Harry told him he heard James. James > > > probably died somewhere outside the house; it was Someone > > > Else inside the house that Harry heard. > > > > > > Whoever the Someone Else was, they survived and were able to > > > contact Dumbledore and tell him what happened. > > > > > > My current theory is 'it wuz Snape' - though the problem with > > > this is the question of why Harry wouldn't have recognised > > > Snape's voice. However, 'it wuz Snape' is the simplest solution > > > to several other problems. > > > > > > > Now Rim A.: > > > > Although an interesting theory, I have reason to doubt it was > > Snape who could have been in the house when Lily was killed and > > the AK on Harry backfired. Assuming it wasn't James and he died > > elsewhere, I have a different theory on who could have been in > > the house. Peter Petigrew. He was the secret keeper. He was in > > cahoots with Voldemort. Harry heard "Lily, take Harry and go! > > It's him! Go! I'll hold him off---" (POA, pg 240 US/hb) while > > learning the patronus with the boggart. Harry assumed it was > > his father, but it could have been anybody on Voldemort's side > > whom the Potter's trusted. That's why I think if it wasn't > > James' voice he heard, it must have been Peter's. > > > > Tim A. [Sorry, I messed up and hit the SEND button accidently.] If a friend of Voldemort's is speaking, then why is he telling Lily to '...take Harry and go! .... I'll hold him off---'? If it was Peter, then Voldemort would have seen Peter while Peter was 'holding him off'. Certainly, Voldemort would never trust Peter again. Even if it was Snape, I'm sure Harry would recognise Snape's oil voice or even Perigrew's squeaky voice. You also need to explain why the friend of Voldemort wasn't killed by Voldemort. True, all we have is Harry's belief that the voice he hears is his Father, but the only thing we have is Harry's belief the the other is his Mother's. We assume the bodies of Harry's father and mother we found at the scene, and that a logical analysis, lead to reasonable conclusions about what happened. bboy_mn From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Wed Aug 7 00:53:27 2002 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (bboy_mn) Date: Wed, 07 Aug 2002 00:53:27 -0000 Subject: Where are the dead buried? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42216 James and Lily Potter are dead, so where are their bodies? Where are they buried? And why hasn't anyone or will someone offer to take Harry to see their graves? Maybe things are different in Europe, but I think anyone would eventually want to visit their parents grave and show their respect. Thought? bboy_mn From rvotaw at i-55.com Wed Aug 7 00:58:58 2002 From: rvotaw at i-55.com (Richelle Votaw) Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2002 19:58:58 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Who was witness to the killing of James and Lily? References: Message-ID: <00f901c23dad$9dcba240$b29ccdd1@istu757> No: HPFGUIDX 42217 Tim A writes: > Although an interesting theory, I have reason to doubt it was Snape > who could have been in the house when Lily was killed and the AK on > Harry backfired. Assuming it wasn't James and he died elsewhere, I > have a different theory on who could have been in the house. Peter > Petigrew. He was the secret keeper. He was in cahoots with > Voldemort. Harry heard "Lily, take Harry and go! It's him! Go! > I'll hold him off---" (POA, pg 240 US/hb) while learning the patronus > with the boggart. Harry assumed it was his father, but it could have > been anybody on Voldemort's side whom the Potter's trusted. That's > why I think if it wasn't James' voice he heard, it must have been > Peter's. The secret keeper wouldn't have been in the same house with those whose secret he was keeping, would he? That would seem to defeat the point to me. Because if anyone really needed the secret keeper they couldn't find him if he was with the ones who had the secret. But what about Lupin? Could it have been him? His actions that night are unaccounted for. Unless there was a full moon, of course. That would explain why he was surprised that Harry heard his dad's voice. Now Harry of course has no way to know what James sounded like. Especially at that point. After GoF and the Priori Incantatum he may have known his voice, if echos sound like real people do. Anyway, sure he could've recognized his voice, but 12 years and losing all your close friends can do a lot to a person. Snape is a possibility, though I can't quite see it. What about Sirius himself? He wasn't the secret keeper and it was said he was planning to go into hiding. But not yet in hiding, right? Could he have been there as support? We know that Hagrid met him there. Perhaps he was knocked out or something and not only lived all that time in Azkaban feeling he had let the Potters down, but also somewhat guilty because he hadn't died with them. All right, did I leave anybody out? :) I think that just about covers it. Richelle From Elvishooked at hotmail.com Tue Aug 6 23:26:23 2002 From: Elvishooked at hotmail.com (elvishooked) Date: Tue, 06 Aug 2002 23:26:23 -0000 Subject: Who was witness to the killing of James and Lily? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42218 > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "elvishooked" wrote: > On the night that Voldemort killed James and Lily - who was > actually present at the house to tell what really happened? > I dont recall having read of anyone except James, Lily, Harry > and Voldemort being in the house when they were killed. So who > actually TOLD the story of what happened? > How is it that everybody knows that Lily sacrificed her self > to protect Harry? She and James died. Harry didnt remember > anything and Voldemort "ran". Who told Dumbledore (and everyone > else) what exactly went on in that house? --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "bboy_mn" wrote: > Don't you ever watch TV? > > Crime scenes and even arson scenes serve very very well to reconstruct > the events of the crime. The location and position of Lilly's body > would have given clues about how and why she died. > > Crime scene investigators can do an amazingly accurate job. > Frequently, criminals are found and convicted based on crime scene > evidence. > > Sorry, I could probably explain this better than I am, but right now > my brain is running at about half speed. > > bboy_mn Of course I watch tv. Only Harry's body wasn't there for investigators to give clue or evidence to the fact that Lily died trying to protect him. Besides, in PoA, Sirius states that when he arrived at the house it was a mess (still havent got the english book-version so not sure about the accuracy of the words here) - had there been an explosion of some kind? That might have left the bodies in somewhat different positions than when killed. I also wonder - where are the graves of James and Lily? Nobody ever took Harry to visit their graves.... Inge From Victim_of_Atlantis at hotmail.com Tue Aug 6 23:33:42 2002 From: Victim_of_Atlantis at hotmail.com (Lost Feyth) Date: Tue, 06 Aug 2002 19:33:42 -0400 Subject: A second child? (Was Re: Would Lily have been spared?) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42219 kelly broughton wrote: >>Or maybe: she was pregnant with a second child. Finally! Something I can post on! *grin* I've actually pondered that for a long time. How that would relate to Voldemort not wanting to kill her right away I'm not exactly sure. I still like the idea of him being the supreme form of evil and enjoys the torturing of others to it's extent, and just wants to watch her face as he kills her son. (I can't see Voldemort having a heart. Can you? Honestly?) This would go along the lines of how we'll learn something new about Lily that we didn't know before. And it would make for an interesting reaction on Harry's part, knowing that Voldemort killed not only his parents, but his brother/sister. Well, in any case, it's something to play around with. -Lost Feyth (who really hopes to exit the world of the lurker and enter the world of posting.) _________________________________________________________________ Join the worlds largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com From jenw118 at HotPOP.com Wed Aug 7 00:57:32 2002 From: jenw118 at HotPOP.com (Jennifer R. Wilson) Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2002 19:57:32 -0500 Subject: Godric's Hollow/Godric Gryffindor any relation? Message-ID: <002501c23dad$6ab9e740$8fc5fbd8@oemcomputer> No: HPFGUIDX 42220 I was just thinking about this similarity in names. . Was Godric's Hollow named after Godric Gryffindor? Is there any canon evidence of this, or is this just thrown in to make us wonder? (Which I doubt JKR does). Anyone know about this? This is my first time to start a post, so I hope it is not too far fetched. Jennifer [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From ian_c_malone at hotmail.com Wed Aug 7 01:16:46 2002 From: ian_c_malone at hotmail.com (Ian Malone) Date: Tue, 06 Aug 2002 21:16:46 -0400 Subject: "It wuz Snape" Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42221 >Yup, 'it wuz Snape'. > >Pip >Squeak! I have to say, 'It wuz Snape' is one of the best formulated theories I have heard in a long time. It makes complete sense with the series. I was blown away when all the points seemed to tie together neatly. I am completely ready to embrace this theory. HOWEVER; A. Why did the Potter's house collapse? It has been established that AK cannot blow a house to pieces. However, at the end of GoF, as Harry is fleeing from the Death Eaters and Voldemort in the Graveyard, one of them casts a spell on him (sorry, don't have the books in front of me, no chapter and page) and he dives behind a grave-stone for cover. The grave-stone cracks as the spell hits it. Could this mean that certain spells can do physical damage to property? Since Snape is an expert dueller, maybe he went all out on Voldemort, and in turn Voldemort went all out on him, bringing the house down to a pile of rubble. But in that event, it would had to have happened AFTER Voldemort AK'd Harry, but he would be in no state to cast spells. It couldn't have happened BEFORE, because wizard or not, Harry wouldn't have survived a house collapsing on him. This leaves me saying, hmmm... B. Where did Snape go and what did Snape do that night they "parted ways" in GoF? Dumbledore says Snape knows what must be done, and Snape agrees, then he leaves in a huff. Many people assume he went back to Voldemort's side to start his two-faced spy business again, but this wouldn't make sense with 'It wuz Snape'. So, what would Snape have done that night? C. After Hagrid discovered Snape in the rubble, what happened to Snape? He just lost a duel to Voldemort, and had a house fall down on him, certainly he would be in no fine mood to get up a go on his own. It is also fairly safe to assume that Snape would have to be gone by the time Sirius arrived, because if Sirius saw Snape at the Potter's house, he would have gone ballistic. So Snape left sometime after Hagrid arrived and before Sirius arrived. So where did he go, and how did he get away so quickly? The Night-Bus? I am assuming that Sanpe was too weak to apparate, but maybe it's just a simple answer. He apparated back to Hogwarts to report to Dumbledore. D. Why does Snape hate Harry? Snape favours the Slytheryns (which is mroe than any other Head of House can say, but that's another matter entirely) and so he therefore treats the other students less, but it doesn't explain his "hatred" of Harry. If he saved Harry's life, why does he go out of his way to make it so miserable? If your retort is that, "well, it's because Harry's father was such a jerk to him", then why did Snape go out of his way to save the Potters that night? Or was he doing it for Lily? This could put a sinister spin on things... maybe Snape arrived just in time to help James, but did nothing and watching him die. He chose not to save James and instead used the distraction to sneak inside and save Lily and baby Harry. Hmmm... heroic, but at the same time vile. What a conflict!! E. My brain hurts, we are done for this evening. >Cooper _________________________________________________________________ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx From michelekerby at hotmail.com Wed Aug 7 01:17:38 2002 From: michelekerby at hotmail.com (Michele Kerby) Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2002 20:17:38 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Who was witness to the killing of James and Lily? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42222 Inge wrote: On the night that Voldemort killed James and Lily - who was actually > present at the house to tell what really happened? > I dont recall having read of anyone except James, Lily, Harry and > Voldemort being in the house when they were killed. So who actually > TOLD the story of what happened? > How is it that everybody knows that Lily sacrificed her self to > protect Harry? She and James died. Harry didnt remember anything and > Voldemort "ran". Who told Dumbledore (and everyone else) what exactly > went on in that house? > I'm a newbie myself (I've been lurking a little off and on but this is my first post here). But I'd like to suggest a possibility (hopefully it hasn't already been discussed to death). I think possibly Voldemort might have had his Death Eaters present (either in the house or lurking nearby) when he killed James and Lily. After all, he seems to enjoy having an audience (Goblet of Fire). If so, Snape, as a Death Eater, may have witnessed the murders and given an account to Dumbledore, either as a spy or would-be spy. Also, I'm not sure that everybody knows of Lily's sacrifice. As far as I remember, only Dumbledore has mentioned it. Michele Kerby michelekerby at hotmail.comGet more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From drednort at alphalink.com.au Wed Aug 7 01:55:05 2002 From: drednort at alphalink.com.au (Shaun Hately) Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2002 11:55:05 +1000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Who was witness to the killing [SORRY]? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3D510A99.8622.4E87C@localhost> No: HPFGUIDX 42223 On 7 Aug 2002 at 0:50, bboy_mn wrote: > [Sorry, I messed up and hit the SEND button accidently.] > > If a friend of Voldemort's is speaking, then why is he telling Lily to > '...take Harry and go! .... I'll hold him off---'? How about, because presumably, Peter didn't want anyone to know he was a friend of Voldemort's - if Lily had survived, and Peter had 'warned' her, it might have made it a lot easier for him to maintain his cover. He certainly would have been questioned - he was the Secret Keeper. Lily's testimony that he had been there to warn him might have been part of a plan to maintain his cover "Voldemort followed me - I tried to warn them, but I was too late." Voldemort could have been in on it, as a way of keeping a trusted agent in place. Yours Without Wax, Dreadnought Shaun Hately |webpage: http://www.alphalink.com.au/~drednort/thelab.html (ISTJ) |email: drednort at alphalink.com.au | ICQ: 6898200 "You know the very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. They don't alter their views to fit the facts. They alter the facts to fit the views. Which can be uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that need altering." The Doctor - Doctor Who: The Face of Evil | Where am I: Frankston, Victoria, Australia From rvotaw at i-55.com Wed Aug 7 02:23:48 2002 From: rvotaw at i-55.com (Richelle Votaw) Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2002 21:23:48 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Godric's Hollow/Godric Gryffindor any relation? References: <002501c23dad$6ab9e740$8fc5fbd8@oemcomputer> Message-ID: <003b01c23db9$7d24c100$68a1cdd1@istu757> No: HPFGUIDX 42224 Jennifer writes: > I was just thinking about this similarity in names. . Was Godric's Hollow named after Godric Gryffindor? Is there any canon evidence of this, or is this just thrown in to make us wonder? (Which I doubt JKR does). Anyone know about this? I think it is. There's no direct canon (that I know of) to support it, but how many Godrics can there be? I think it may have a connection to the Potters possibly being the heirs of Gryffindor. There are other connections, such as Harry pulling the sword of Godric Gryffindor from the sorting hat and so on. If James was the heir of Gryffindor I suppose it would make sense for him to live in Godric's Hollow. Richelle From psychchick04 at yahoo.com Wed Aug 7 02:31:40 2002 From: psychchick04 at yahoo.com (Jacqueline Hendries) Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2002 19:31:40 -0700 (PDT) Subject: The night the Potters died In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020807023140.38495.qmail@web9205.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 42225 here's a silly, not very in-depth question, but something I've always wondered - if the house in Godric's Hollow was blown to smithereens - how did Harry survive *that*? I mean, I can see Lily's sacrifice protecting him from AK, but from falling brick? I don't have the books right in front of me, but I'm pretty sure that when Hagrid arrives with Harry on Sirius's motorbike, he says that the house was leveled when he got there, I don't know if he ever says that Harry was *in* the house at that point, though. So, this kind of opens up two possibilities: 1) The Potters (well, Lily at least) were not indoors when the AK rebounded on Voldemort, or... 2) There was indeed someone else around that scooped up poor, traumatised little Harry and deposited him outside before the house blew up. The second is kind of an interesting interpretation... but if there was someone else there, wouldn't Harry probably have remembered? Supposedly JKR is going to be elaborating on what happened that night in later books, but it seems to me that there's a bit of a plot hole there, or at least an action hole. :) Thoughts? (slightly OT) PS - I keep hearing that the release of OoP has been "confirmed" for June 2003 (and this week's Newsweek mentioned having another year to wait for Book 5), but so far nothing from Bloomsbury, and when I search the net with Google, I can't find anything either. Is this a real, true, thing, or can I still hope for Holiday 2002? ;) ===== jackie04 at brandeis.edu __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better http://health.yahoo.com From hp_lexicon at yahoo.com Wed Aug 7 02:50:36 2002 From: hp_lexicon at yahoo.com (hp_lexicon) Date: Wed, 07 Aug 2002 02:50:36 -0000 Subject: The night the Potters died In-Reply-To: <20020807023140.38495.qmail@web9205.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42226 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Jacqueline Hendries wrote: > here's a silly, not very in-depth question, but something I've always > wondered - if the house in Godric's Hollow was blown to smithereens - > how did Harry survive *that*? I mean, I can see Lily's sacrifice > protecting him from AK, but from falling brick? \ I've written about this in the Lexicon, although I can't remember which page it's on off the top of my head. Basically, I think Harry's surviving the destruction of his parents' house is an example of the fact that wizards have some sort of built-in protection against mundane accidental injury. They simply can't be killed as easily as Muggles. Here's a few examples from the books: Neville's family thinks he may be a squib. In order to test him, his Great Uncle tries to surprise the little fellow by nearly killing him! He pushes him off a pier into the ocean, for example. Apparently, the magic-ness in him, if there is any, will manifest itself in a surprise of that kind. Then he gets dropped from an upper story window and he bounces! This built-in protection indicates to his family that he's in fact magical. Various Quidditch players are injured in spectacular ways, including, for example, ploughing into the ground at top speed. Krum takes a bowling-ball-sized iron ball to the face. In every case, they are not permanently injured and certainly not killed. Neville again, this time in flying class. He falls fifty feet from a broomstick. Fifty feet. I don't care if he's falling onto grass, this kid should be dead. All that happens is a broken wrist. Hagrid's reaction to hearing that the Dursleys told Harry that his parents were killed in a car crash is particularly telling. He considers it laughable that anyone would think that a car crash could have killed them. Obviously, that seems perfectly reasonable to us Muggles, but not to Hagrid. Notice too that Harry, before he even knew he was a wizard, saved himself from being pounded by Dudley and his friends by levitating to the top of the school (or was it Apparating!). It seems that wizards have the magical equivelent of "airbags," and when danger strikes, they instantly and without intention fire off some counter or pretection spell. It is also possible that they have a sense we Muggles don't recognize which alerts them to danger in advance. After all, Harry does seem to be able to sense people that he can't see (Snuffles, for example, and Winky and Crouch Jr. in the wood). Steve The Lexicon who wishes he had a wizard ability to pay large car repair bills magically From editor at texas.net Wed Aug 7 03:06:47 2002 From: editor at texas.net (Amanda Geist) Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2002 22:06:47 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Would Lily have been spared?/AK curse References: Message-ID: <007901c23dbf$79171940$957e63d1@texas.net> No: HPFGUIDX 42227 Darrin said: > If he wanted to spare her, he could have. Just cast Crucio, paralyze > her with pain, roll her over and then boom, free shot at Harry. Get > rid of Crucio as you walk out the door and then disparate away. This is, actually, yet another circumstantial support for Jan's and Grey Wolf's theory that Lily's death was a component of a spell to protect him. Voldemort wanted Lily to voluntarily step away, offers her her life. For some reason her will mattered, here. She refused, and by their theory, her willing and loving death was the last element needed for a powerful protection spell to shield Harry. And it worked. He didn't want her alive. He wanted her to move. He could so easily just have killed her too, without speaking....why else would he bother, unless there was some objective to getting her out of the way? --Amanda From kellybroughton at yahoo.com Wed Aug 7 03:20:05 2002 From: kellybroughton at yahoo.com (kelly broughton) Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2002 20:20:05 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] A second child? (Was Re: Would Lily have been spared?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020807032005.33971.qmail@web21105.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 42228 --- Lost Feyth wrote: > kelly broughton wrote: > > > >>Or maybe: she was pregnant with a second child. > > Finally! Something I can post on! *grin* > > I've actually pondered that for a long time. How that would relate to > Voldemort not wanting to kill her right away I'm not exactly sure. I > still > like the idea of him being the supreme form of evil and enjoys the > torturing > of others to it's extent, and just wants to watch her face as he kills > her > son. (I can't see Voldemort having a heart. Can you? Honestly?) > > This would go along the lines of how we'll learn something new about > Lily > that we didn't know before. And it would make for an interesting > reaction on > Harry's part, knowing that Voldemort killed not only his parents, but > his > brother/sister. > > Well, in any case, it's something to play around with. > > -Lost Feyth > (who really hopes to exit the world of the lurker and enter the world of > > posting.) > > Actually, I was thinking along the lines of Vmort killing Lily *because* she was pregnant with another Potter, and he just didn't want to leave anything to chance. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better http://health.yahoo.com From divaclv at aol.com Wed Aug 7 03:35:50 2002 From: divaclv at aol.com (c_voth312) Date: Wed, 07 Aug 2002 03:35:50 -0000 Subject: Where are the dead buried? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42229 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "bboy_mn" wrote: > James and Lily Potter are dead, so where are their bodies? Where are > they buried? And why hasn't anyone or will someone offer to take Harry > to see their graves? > One suggestion: they were creamated and their ashes scattered, hence no gravesite or memorial exists. Since we have no evidence to the contrary, one assumes that wizard burial rites are more or less concurrent with Muggle ceremonies, which allows for some variety as to disposal of the remains. ~Christi From ra_1013 at yahoo.com Wed Aug 7 03:38:59 2002 From: ra_1013 at yahoo.com (Andrea) Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2002 20:38:59 -0700 (PDT) Subject: A second child? (Was Re: Would Lily have been spared?) In-Reply-To: <20020807032005.33971.qmail@web21105.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20020807033859.34243.qmail@web10906.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 42230 > --- Lost Feyth wrote: > > kelly broughton wrote: > > >>Or maybe: she was pregnant with a second child. > > > > Finally! Something I can post on! *grin* > > > > I've actually pondered that for a long time. How that would relate to > > Voldemort not wanting to kill her right away I'm not exactly sure. I > > still > > like the idea of him being the supreme form of evil and enjoys the > > torturing > > of others to it's extent, and just wants to watch her face as he kills > > her > > son. (I can't see Voldemort having a heart. Can you? Honestly?) *grins* I too have pondered this recently, and have been planning a long post explaining my theory. I have thought that perhaps Lily was pregnant with another child and Voldemort had considered some sort of spell where he could turn the child in utero, so it would either serve him or just serve as a particularly macabre spell component. But either he didn't really care all that much about the spell OR it somehow needed Lily willing and he'd thought that simply offering her her life would be enough. Something to think about. :) Andrea ===== "Reality is for people who lack imagination." __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better http://health.yahoo.com From Victim_of_Atlantis at hotmail.com Wed Aug 7 02:22:48 2002 From: Victim_of_Atlantis at hotmail.com (Lost Feyth) Date: Tue, 06 Aug 2002 22:22:48 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: "It wuz Snape" Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42231 "Ian Malone" wrote: >>So where did he go, and how did he get away so quickly? The Night->>Bus? I >>am >>assuming that Snape was too weak to apparate, but maybe it's just a >> >>simple >>answer. He apparated back to Hogwarts to report to Dumbledore. Haven't you read Hogwarts: A History? ;) Snape couldn't have apparated to Hogwarts. You can't apparate or disapparate onto/off of Hogwarts grounds. Still, he could have apparated somewhere else, I'm sure there are other safe spots besides Hogwarts that we have yet to learn of. Lost Feyth Who is enjoying the It wuz Snape theory, but still likes the idea of it being Lupin. _________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com From rvotaw at i-55.com Wed Aug 7 03:59:47 2002 From: rvotaw at i-55.com (Richelle Votaw) Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2002 22:59:47 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] The night the Potters died & where are their graves References: <20020807023140.38495.qmail@web9205.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <003c01c23dc6$dfa5d000$989fcdd1@istu757> No: HPFGUIDX 42232 > here's a silly, not very in-depth question, but something I've always > wondered - if the house in Godric's Hollow was blown to smithereens - > how did Harry survive *that*? I mean, I can see Lily's sacrifice > protecting him from AK, but from falling brick? I don't have the books Well there are known muggle cases where babies survive tornadoes and all sorts of disasterous things. Still, it could've been something else too. > 1) The Potters (well, Lily at least) were not indoors when the AK > rebounded on Voldemort, or... Possible. In the film that cannot be named Lily is shown closing the door, turning around with Harry, green flash (presumably when James is AK'd) and next thing you know Harry's in his crib. Surely she'd have gotten further than that? If James (or other unknown individual that told her to run) was supposed to be holding Voldemort off for her and Harry to get away, why walk five steps and wait for him? Yes, I know she is willing to sacrifice herself to save Harry, but I think if I were in her place and presuming it was James who told her to take Harry and run I'd have fulfilled my husband's last request. Maybe I'm a softy, though. She could've at least gotten out of the house. > 2) There was indeed someone else around that scooped up poor, > traumatised little Harry and deposited him outside before the house > blew up. Yes, I can see that. Suppose for a moment Sirius (I'll use him for my purposes at the moment) has come to try and help the Potters. He finds he was too late, perhaps he arrives at the very moment that Voldemort tries to AK Harry and fails. Could be something of that magnitude could bring the house down. (no pun intended) As the house begins to shake around them, he grabs a screaming baby Harry out of the crib and runs out of the house. Watches it fall down. Realizes Voldemort has been defeated. Has some urgent business to attend to, but what? Making sure Voldemort's gone perhaps? Anyway, what to do with the baby? Leaves him in the house. Decides to come back a little later. When he does Hagrid is there. He takes the baby. Then Sirius goes after Peter etc. If not Sirius, go back and put Lupin in his place. After all, where WAS Lupin all that time? Full moon? Still, point being it is possible that someone came at the very time Voldemort tried to AK Harry and was only able to stay long enough to grab Harry and run out of the house. Christi writes: > One suggestion: they were creamated and their ashes scattered, hence > no gravesite or memorial exists. Since we have no evidence to the > contrary, one assumes that wizard burial rites are more or less > concurrent with Muggle ceremonies, which allows for some variety as > to disposal of the remains. What if in fact the house did blow up? Their bodies could've gone with it. Presuming they were both in the house at the time of death. If not, maybe all wizards are cremated? Sort of a Jedi thing? Or too Star Wars perhaps. :) Richelle From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Wed Aug 7 04:24:29 2002 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (bboy_mn) Date: Wed, 07 Aug 2002 04:24:29 -0000 Subject: Where are the dead buried? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42233 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "c_voth312" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "bboy_mn" wrote: > > James and Lily Potter are dead, so where are their bodies? Where are > > they buried? And why hasn't anyone or will someone offer to take > Harry > > to see their graves? > > > > One suggestion: they were creamated and their ashes scattered, hence > no gravesite or memorial exists. Since we have no evidence to the > contrary, one assumes that wizard burial rites are more or less > concurrent with Muggle ceremonies, which allows for some variety as > to disposal of the remains. > > ~Christi bboy_mn responds: Cool thought. Unless there ashes were randomly scattered, there is still some location that is associated with their final resting place. It not really that important, but I thought it was odd that it's never came up. Maybe because Harry's just a little boy, he isn't thinking of those things. But I would have to assume that at some point, any reasonable person would want to know where their bodies were. As far as creamation, while it is certainly done in Europe, I suspect it is not very common and certainly not traditional. bboy_mn From bard7696 at aol.com Wed Aug 7 04:36:22 2002 From: bard7696 at aol.com (darrin_burnett) Date: Wed, 07 Aug 2002 04:36:22 -0000 Subject: Where are the dead buried? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42234 Christi wrote: > > > > One suggestion: they were creamated and their ashes scattered, hence > no gravesite or memorial exists. Since we have no evidence to the > contrary, one assumes that wizard burial rites are more or less > concurrent with Muggle ceremonies, which allows for some variety as > to disposal of the remains. > > ~Christi We have one case of a funeral rite being more preferable with a body. The Diggorys thank Harry for bringing Cedric's body back, indicating it is very important. One answer to why Harry hasn't seen the graves yet is the possible location of the graves. If they are near Godric's Hollow, isn't that an all-day trip from Hogwarts? (Unless of course, floo powder is used from some fireplace in Hogsmeade) And Uncle Vernon and Aunt Petunia certainly aren't going to go out of their way to show Harry his folks' grave during the summer. Maybe there just hasn't been time yet. Darrin -- But I hope it's coming soon. That should be a great scene. From michelekerby at hotmail.com Wed Aug 7 04:54:34 2002 From: michelekerby at hotmail.com (Michele Kerby) Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2002 23:54:34 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] The night the Potters died & where are their graves Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42235 Richelle writes: >What if in fact the house did blow up? Their bodies could've gone with it. >Presuming they were both in the house at the time of death. If not, maybe >all wizards are cremated? Sort of a Jedi thing? Or too Star Wars perhaps. >:) On another list I belong to an Anglican priest, who lives in England, wrote that in his country nowadays cremations are much more common than burials. Perhaps JKR thought her readers would assumed they were cremated? Michele Kerby michelekerby at hotmail.comGet more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From ajl at hanson.net Wed Aug 7 04:54:56 2002 From: ajl at hanson.net (dembeldei) Date: Wed, 07 Aug 2002 04:54:56 -0000 Subject: Where are the dead buried? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42236 > Christi wrote: > > One suggestion: they were creamated and their ashes scattered, > hence > > no gravesite or memorial exists. Since we have no evidence to the > > contrary, one assumes that wizard burial rites are more or less > > concurrent with Muggle ceremonies, which allows for some variety as > > to disposal of the remains. Maybe Harry's parents are buried in a Muggle cemetery (or their ashes, in some Muggle ceremony) in keeping with his being raised by his Muggle relatives and their cover that James and Lily died in a car crash, as well as Harry's being kept out of the wizarding world as he grew up. The relatives of the Dursley world as well as Harry would then not wonder what happened to the bodies if they were in a car crash. Dembeldei From beech000 at uwp.edu Wed Aug 7 02:33:30 2002 From: beech000 at uwp.edu (Molly) Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2002 21:33:30 -0500 (Central Daylight Time) Subject: Weasley family ages Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42237 I'm working on a fic, and I got about one line into it before I stopped and went, "But how old ARE they?", which led to much scribbling as I attempted to figure out the general age divisions of the Weasley clan. So far I have: Ginny is approx. one year younger than Ron, who is approx. two years younger than the twins, who are approx. two years younger than Percy. Percy, it seems, is approx four years older than Ron. Ron says that Gryffindor hasn't won the House Cup in seven years, since Charlie was on the team, so Charlie has to have been out of Hogwarts seven years when Harry&Co. start, making him at least thirteen, fourteen years older than Ron (assuming he played Quidditch his last year at Hogwarts). Bill I have no idea about, and I think it's assumed he's older than Charlie, but is there evidence for this? And why the big gap between Charlie (if he's younger) and Percy? I think I've figured out most of JKR's English historical references in the Weasley family might be (just kind of guesses, I haven't researched any of this): Arthur - King Arthur, Percy - Knight Percival (or Percival the Fool (hmm)), Charlie, Bill & George - all Kings of England, Molly - Mary, Queen of Scots, Ginny - Guinevere, Fred - Lord North. Ron - I have no clue. Thoughts? - Molly, newbie from WI From yrawen at ontheqt.org Wed Aug 7 05:34:11 2002 From: yrawen at ontheqt.org (yr awen) Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2002 01:34:11 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Weasley family ages References: Message-ID: <008301c23dd4$109422e0$68f0f718@kzo.chartermi.net> No: HPFGUIDX 42238 Molly said: I think I've figured out most of JKR's English historical references in the Weasley family might be (just kind of guesses, I haven't researched any of this): Arthur - King Arthur, Percy - Knight Percival (or Percival the Fool (hmm)), Charlie, Bill & George - all Kings of England, Molly - Mary, Queen of Scots, Ginny - Guinevere, Fred - Lord North. Ron - I have no clue.<<<<<<<<<<<< I *think* the HP Lexicon or another site mentions this, but I can't remember ^^; Ron (or Rone) is given as the name of Arthur's spear in the 12th century Brut, by Lawman. I'm not sure if Geoffrey of Monmouth or any of the other Arthurian writers mention that point or not -- Lawman's the first that springs to mind. On Ginny, though, 'Ginny' is typically a dimunitive of Virginia, which might possibly be a reference to Elizabeth I. But Guinevere's an interesting idea :-) George may be a reference to Saint George, the patron saint of England, as well, and Bill to William the Conqueror (although he was technically Norman ) For my own edification, is it ever mentioned in the books that Ron's middle name is Arthur? Anyone? Thanks :-) HF. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From crana at ntlworld.com Wed Aug 7 06:31:15 2002 From: crana at ntlworld.com (crana285) Date: Wed, 07 Aug 2002 06:31:15 -0000 Subject: Why Wasn't Hagrid Cleared? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42239 Phyllis wrote: > I'm a new member, but thanks to Darrin's kind note about not being > afraid to bring up a topic that's probably been discussed a million > times before, I'm going to bring up a question that I have about CoS - > which is, why does everyone (except Dumbledore) still believe Hagrid > opened the Chamber of Secrets 50 years ago when it subsequently > became clear that Tom Riddle was Voldemort and the true Heir of > Slytherin? As Professor Binns points out, only the Heir of Slytherin > can open the chamber. So once Riddle revealed himself as Voldemort > and the Heir of Slytherin, why didn't everyone put these pieces > together and realize that Hagrid was framed? > > The only way I can make this make sense is if Dumbledore is the only > one who knows that Riddle is Voldemort. But if Dumbledore's the only > one who knows, how did he find out something that no one else knows, > and why did he keep it a secret? Hi Phyllis and welcome! I may well be wrong here but I think Hagrid's name was cleared after CoS - this is why he was allowed to become a teacher in PoA if I remember rightly. Please tell me if I've got it wrong and it says somewhere that he is still considered to have been responsible for the first attacks! Rosie From jodel at aol.com Wed Aug 7 07:23:25 2002 From: jodel at aol.com (jodel at aol.com) Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2002 03:23:25 EDT Subject: Would Lily have been spared? Message-ID: <166.11cdccfb.2a8224ed@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 42240 This is an issue that canon leaves pretty much in the air, since most of the statements regarding it are at least somewhat contradictory. About the only fairly certain information we have to go by is Harry's replaying of his mother's murder while under the influence of Dementors. That version we can feel reasonably sure actually happened. We can NOT take 16-year-old Tom Riddle's word on the matter as given in Chamber of Secrets because 1. The diary revenant wasn't there. 2. His information, such as it is, has just about all been filtered through Ginny Weasley, who wasn't there either. and 3. We can already see that by what he has already had to say during the scene that Tom Riddle just plain lies. (Werewolf pups, indeed.) Lord Voldemort's take on the matter in Stone or Goblet is more likely to have some truth in it, but this is still Tom Riddle that we're dealing with, and we already know that Tom Riddle lies like a rug whenever it suits him. His reading on the events under question is also at the very least, heavily biased. But Harry's memories of the events ARE insistent on the fact that LV did NOT simply blast Lily and then turn his wand on Harry. He repeatedly told her to get out of the way, and her entire end of the dialogue appears to have consisted of screaming (over and over) "Not Harry! Kill me instead! But not Harry" or words very much to that effect. This, as I said above, I think we can take to be true. Now, the question is not so much WOULD Voldemort have killed her, as why didn't he kill her at the outset? The fact that he did not suggests that he is not lying (or not completely lying) when he claims that Lily didn't have to die. Which raises the further question of why not Lily? Here is a Muggle-born witch -- a class of person that we have been led to believe that any Slytherin worth their salt regards as dust beneath their chariot wheels. And which Voldemort and his followers in particular are said to be dedicated to exterminating. What would cause him to offer to spare her? Well, my own interpretation on this is that Voldemort is not above using the carrot as well as the stick. Whether or not Snape was in love with Lily Evans is neither here nor there, but we have it on Remus Lupin's authority that Peter Petigrew almost certainly was. I think that Lily was to have been his reward for leading Voldemort to the Potters. Had all gone as intended, I think Lily would have been found lightly injured and unconsious (and obliviated) in the ruins of the house with the bodies of her husband and son. Sirius Black would have been killed in the confrontation between him and Petigrew (who would have not been waiting for Sirius alone) and as far as the wizarding public knew, Peter would have been a live and grieving hero devoting himself to consoling James Potter's widow. This interpretation might be completely off base, but so far there appears to be nothing in canon to absolutely contradict it. Peter Pettigrew is a LOT cleverer than most interpretatons give him credit for being. Framing Sirius and enginering his own disapearance on the spur of the moment was not the act of a stupid man. Or of a coward. It showed intelligence, resourcefulness a very steady nerve, a very canny understanding on manipulating people and a taste for violent mayhem. He also had enough personal charm for the other three marauders to enjoy keeping his company. So what if he's not a born leader or particularly strong at Trqnsfiguration? I think he and Sirius would have constituted a real handful when they were at school together and thet they were the two ringleaders on most of the more destructive pranks that the four of them got up to. Something I'd like to know is just who Sirius Black was chewing the fat with when he came up with his bright idea to play heroic decoy as the Potter's Secret Keeper while the real Secret Keeper was someone less obvious who no one would suspect? Of course none of this explains why Voldemort didn't just get Lily under Imperius and force her to hand Harry over. "Jodel" From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Wed Aug 7 07:54:08 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Wed, 07 Aug 2002 07:54:08 -0000 Subject: Who was witness to the killing of James and Lily? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42241 Inge wrote: > Of course I watch tv. > Only Harry's body wasn't there for investigators to give clue or > evidence to the fact that Lily died trying to protect him. I think we arte talking C.S.I. here, but that's besides the point... (as well as OT). Anyway, even if there was no baby, it's easy to imagine where the baby *was* just before the explosion i.e. in the exact center of it. Then too, there is the fact that there are spells that allow to see a bit of the past (like the prior incantato to know the last spell of a wand, there may be others to know the last spell in a place, or even, dabling in necromancy, to ask the dead about what happened) and the spells that allow a magical equivalent of CSI. > Besides, in PoA, Sirius states that when he arrived at the house it > was a mess (still havent got the english book-version so not sure > about the accuracy of the words here) - had there been an explosion > of some kind? That might have left the bodies in somewhat different > positions than when killed. Even if the bodies move around during an explosion, it's posible to reconstruct the original scene. The study of movement of bodies (bodies as in "objects", not as in "corpses") is very exact, and you just have to know the strenght of the explosion,which is very easy when you have as many debris as there was in the crime scene. > I also wonder - where are the graves of James and Lily? Nobody ever > took Harry to visit their graves.... > > Inge There is a rumour that they are buried in Godric's Hollow. In line to your question, JKR said that in book five Harry would be going to a place whe have heard off but where we have no yet been, and a few people suggested Godric's Hollow to visit his parents graves. It doesn't fit perfectly, but you never know (for example, we*have* been there: with Harry, during the Dementor's scenes). Hope that helps, Grey Wolf From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Wed Aug 7 08:21:01 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Wed, 07 Aug 2002 08:21:01 -0000 Subject: Who was witness to the killing of James and Lily? In-Reply-To: <00f901c23dad$9dcba240$b29ccdd1@istu757> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42242 Richelle Votaw wrote: > Tim A writes: > > > Although an interesting theory, I have reason to doubt it was Snape > > who could have been in the house when Lily was killed and the AK on > > Harry backfired. > > The secret keeper wouldn't have been in the same house with those > whose secret he was keeping, would he? That would seem to defeat the > point to me. Because if anyone really needed the secret keeper they > couldn't find him if he was with the ones who had the secret. > > But what about Lupin? Could it have been him? > Snape is a possibility, though I can't quite see it. What about > Sirius himself? > Richelle There is just a tiny little problem with all these theories about who was there with Voldemort: No-one is supposed to be able to find the house where the Potters were living, since they had cast a secret-keeper spell on themselves. In fact, you can't even suggest that Dumbledore knew the secret, since not even him knew who was the *real* secret keeper, and I assume you need to be guided, or helped in some other way, by the secret keeper to get to the house. Thus, no Snape, no Sirius, no Lupin (a pity! I really liked that idea - it explains neatly Lupin's surprise). About the only one that would fit is Pettigrew himself, trying to protect his cover but, as some have pointed out, his voice is squeaky. Of course, at time, Harry hadn't heard Wormtail before, so he could have assumed it was his father's voice (distortioned by the distance, for example), and the few times he has actually heard Wormtail where either a dream, very stressing for Harry (and thus with no time to ponder where he might have heard the voice before), Wormtail being deliberately subservient or any suitable combination of the three. Hope that helps, Grey Wolf From ffionmiles at hotmail.com Wed Aug 7 09:15:53 2002 From: ffionmiles at hotmail.com (ffimiles) Date: Wed, 07 Aug 2002 09:15:53 -0000 Subject: Weasley family ages In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42243 As regards the ages of the Weasley family - it is confusing - to throw another spanner int he works, in GoF, when Mrs Weasley and bill come to support Harry, Bill says he hasn't seen the place for 5 years (I might be wrong on that exact figure,a s I don't ahve the book to hand, but it's something like that), which makes far more sense, as this would place the ages like this (at GoF timing) - ginny 13, Ron 14, twins 16, Percy 18 and Bill 22, so Charlie presumably 20. This does leave the problem of Gryffindor not having one the cup for 7 yeas since Charlie was seeker - if Charlie's 20 when Ron's 14, then he was 17 when Ron started at Hogwarts - making him 10 seven years previously when the cup was won...indeed confusing. Also, I always been surprised that Charlie woudl be seeker, as he's described as being built like the twins - rather short and stocky - not ideal for a seeker. Oh well - I do feel a bit bad nit-picking timelines as I'm sure JKR couldn't help but throw some things in that didn't make total sense later! I know she has a total story plan, but I guess she'd've had tor eally go through everything with an extremely fine toothcomb to ensure that everything's chronologically correct...we forgive her! Ffi From Ali at zymurgy.org Wed Aug 7 10:21:46 2002 From: Ali at zymurgy.org (alhewison) Date: Wed, 07 Aug 2002 10:21:46 -0000 Subject: Where are the dead buried? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42244 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "bboy_mn" wrote: > As far as creamation, while it is certainly done in Europe, I suspect > it is not very common and certainly not traditional. > I can't speak for "Europe" but I can speak for England. Cremation is very common. We are a comparatively small country and quite simply don't have the land available for loads more graveyards and cemeteries. That said, burial is still common, and I don't know the statistics of cremation v burial. Back to canon, I've always thought that under the guardianship of the Dursleys, Harry was so downtrodden that he'd never have been allowed to ask about his parents' final resting place. I think this issue will be one of the questions that JKR has said that Harry should have asked by now, but will ask in future books. Ali Who has sprained her ankle showing her daughter how [not] to skip, and is not sure she could run at the moment even if Voldemort was behind her! From jmyers at sunflower.com Wed Aug 7 08:55:57 2002 From: jmyers at sunflower.com (Jerry Myers) Date: Wed, 07 Aug 2002 03:55:57 -0500 Subject: The night the Potters died & where are their graves In-Reply-To: <1028705445.1069.59389.m12@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42245 Richelle wrote: > Yes, I can see that. Suppose for a moment Sirius (I'll use him for my > purposes at the moment) has come to try and help the Potters. He finds he > was too late, perhaps he arrives at the very moment that Voldemort tries to > AK Harry and fails. Could be something of that magnitude could bring the > house down. (no pun intended) As the house begins to shake around them, he > grabs a screaming baby Harry out of the crib and runs out of the house. > Watches it fall down. Realizes Voldemort has been defeated. Has some > urgent business to attend to, but what? Making sure Voldemort's gone > perhaps? Anyway, what to do with the baby? Leaves him in the house. > Decides to come back a little later. When he does Hagrid is there. He > takes the baby. Then Sirius goes after Peter etc. If not Sirius, go back > and put Lupin in his place. After all, where WAS Lupin all that time? Full > moon? > > Still, point being it is possible that someone came at the very time > Voldemort tried to AK Harry and was only able to stay long enough to grab > Harry and run out of the house. > > My theory, since I first read the books, was that the failed AK created the blast that wrecked the house. Assuming that the rebounding of the curse was the source of the blast, the epicenter of it would have been Harry himself, with the blast radiating outwards (from his forehead?). Also assuming Harry's 'protection' was total at that moment, he would have been left laying in a somewhat broken crib with a now-blasted house all around him. The force would have thrown splinters, debris, bricks and fragments of glass AWAY from him. Pretty dramatic scene for Hagrid to see when he shows up to carry the poor little fellow off and also for Sirius when he (presumably) arrives shortly after thereafter and offers Hagrid his motorcycle before he goes hunting Pettigrew. Jerry From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Wed Aug 7 11:22:28 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Wed, 07 Aug 2002 11:22:28 -0000 Subject: The Fateful Night (VERY long) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42246 Presenting a new theory by Grey Wolf... so sit down somewhere confortable: it takes me 100 lines you to clear my throat... or had you noticed? Lately, there has been an increased output of posts around the matter of the fateful night. I'm enjoying the discussion, but problems have cropped up and in trying to put forward canon and my opinion, I have to do so in so many different posts I'm starting to get lost in what I'm answering where. Thus, I've decided to put forward a post on what (I think) we know about that night, where is the slack for our theories, and how I interpret that slack. 1. The Facts ------------ As I've mentioned in previous posts, the fateful night is a good piece of discusion because we have so little info on it that almost anything fits. Since there is so little that, in fact, the celluloid-thing-that- must-not-be-named almost gives more info on it that the books, let's just put it in writing as a starting point. The Potters, for reasons unknown, decided to go into hiding. For that reason, they decided to use a secret-keeper spell, and informed the authorities. At first, they had decided that Sirius would be their secret keeper, and told everyone so. Sirius was also planning to go into hiding, so it would be a good choice. However, at the last possible moment, Sirius convinced James and Lily of making a Secret Keeper secret change (which stands to reason, since Sirius could attract attention without endangering the Potters), and suggested Wormtail, out of the suspicion that Lupin was the spy. The spell was cast, and Peter became the secret keeper. Let's fast-forward a week to the fateful night: Overjoyed, Peter runs to Voldemort to tell him where the Potters are, and Voldemort gets on the way, with an indeterminate number of his forces with him. Voldemort arrives and, with the secret keeper spell broken for him thanks to Peter, he is able to see James, Lily and Harry. James dies by Voldemort's AK while Lily makes a run for it. Someone shouts to Lily that she must run away. Voldemort finds Lily and tells her to get out of the way, so she might be spared. V tries to AK Harry, but Lily gets in the way and dies, but Harry is protected by the love shield thanks to his mother's sacrifice (or some other, unspecified, way). Voldemort AKes Harry, but it rebounds and hits Voldemort. Voldemort turns into a vapour and flees to Albania. The Potter house falls around in ruins. At the same time, Sirius decides to check on Peter and make sure that he is still on Dumbledore's side. He arrives to Peter's den to find it empty. With a horrible sense of foreboding, he speeds to the Potters's house in Godric Hollow to find it destroyed, and Hagrid already there with Harry. He lends Hagrid his motorbike so he can take Harry some place safe, and starts looking for Peter. Hagrid leaves with Harry on the bike, and is missing for the next 24 hours, until he makes an appearance at Privet Drive with Harry. Wizards from the MoM arrive to the scene, and find one to three bodies (James almost surely, and possibly Lily's. We don't know what happens to Voldemort's body, but AKs normally leave the body behind). They inmediately go looking for Sirius, as the suspected traitor since he was the secret keeper. At the same time, Sirius has found Peter, but this one out-thinks him and scapes, faking his own death. Sirius, is found by 20 Special Operations Wizards, headed by Fudge, who find him in a hysterical crisis in the middle of a hole in the ground, besides Peter's apparent bloody remains. 2. The Slack ------------ Until JKR gives more details of what happened the fateful night, there are a few places that can be interpreted differently, any of which could fit. I'm putting the ones I can think of, although there are probably a few more, in no particular order: a) Number of DEs with Voldemort. The Longbottom torture seems to indicate that DEs looked for strenght of small groups, but Voldemort tends to be proud and over-confident of his abilities. Thus, any number of DEs could have been with him that night, from none to all the flock, pasing by just Peter, or Voldemort's closests DEs (which might or might not include Snape at that point). b) The cause of the explosion. AK alone does not cause explosions, so it seems like the deaths of Lily and James were not the direct cause. It remains to be seen whether an AK hitting a love shield, or a rebounded AK hitting an immortal dark wizard, or some third magic we have not heard of yet was the cause. c) The movement of key players: How did Hagrid arrive to the scene so early, how did Sirius find Peter, etc. d) The working of the secret keeper spell. I assume that the spell gives a sort of invisibility to the recipients, and only the secret keeper can allow someone to see them. At any rate, the place could be found by non-secret keepers: Sirius knows where the Potters are living, and he is not part of the spell, and so does Hagrid and, I'd imagine, Dumbledore, who gave directions to Hagrid. e) Number of bodies found in the Scene: Did the explosion vaporize the three bodies? Just Voldemort's (who was closest)? How did Harry survive it? f) Information on the events. How did the MoM officials know what had transpired? How did Dumbledore? How much does the general public know about it? g) Possible third parties. Since the house is findable, any number of people who knew where the Potters lived could have been there that night, but what they were doing besides an apparently empty house could be difficult to explain. h) The workings of the Love-shield. Is it a normal spell? an ancient spell? Harry's own innate but very powerful magical protection? Was it created by Lily's sacrifice? By her love alone? etc. 3. My own theory ---------------- This post could not be complete without putting forward what *I* think, so here it comes. It answers, in a fashion, all the questions in section 2, but it's obviously my own theory, my *opinion* and is open to debate. The way I see it, Voldemort had to have Peter with him to break the Secret Keeper spell, and a few more of his DEs for back-up (including Snape). My pet theory, MAGIC DISHWASHER, says that Voldemort *has* read the "100 things I would do if I was an evil overlord"[1], and in this case, rule #80. , so he takes the mission upon himself, but takes back-up just in case. James sees the full group coming/apparating and shouts Lily to run. Peter point's out the position of James, and the DEs watch while Voldemort finishes him off. Voldemort then goes into the house, with the intention of paying Peter for being a traitor: giving him Lily. However, he's a profesional evil overlord, and thus knows rule #78. and thus, when after several warnings Lily fails to get out of the way, she is summarily AKed (rules #4. and #6. ). However, Voldemort forgets the ancient love-shield spell based on a sacrifice for love that Lily had been studying, and when he tries to AK Harry, the AK rebounds on the love shield and hits him squarely. When the AK spell which, in my opinion, disassociates the soul from the body, hits the almost soul-less Voldemort, after having been rebounded in a love shield, all hell breaks loose. His body detonates with extreme force, blowing off the room's ceiling and dropping bits and pieces of house all over Godric's Hollow. So far, in fact, that almost none of it falls on Harry (and what little it does fall on him is easily stopped by the love shield and the innate magic protection all wizards have).[2] The DEs, shocked at what they've seen, decide to flee the place before some MoM official comes by. This includes Snape and Peter. Most of the DEs think of the Imperius defence, either as a group or individually. Dumbledore feels James's and Lily's death, and inmediately sends Hagrid with orders to get Harry and take him some place safe, and to meet with him at midnight of the next day at Privet's drive. Hagrid takes floo powder to a near place and arrives there minutes before Sirius, but with time enough to find Harry, more or less intact, except for the scar. Sirius arrives later, since he used the motobike, slower than Floo powder and asks for Harry. Hagrid will not give it to him, but accepts the bike. With no child to protect, Sirius goes looking for Peter. He knows him well, so he's able to find him in less than a day, by looking in the usual hiding places a rat like Peter would choose. Some of the DEs go to the MoM with a story: they had been taken Imperioed to the Potter's house, and tell part of the story. Hagrid's version also gets around. The MoM, in an uncharacteristic show of eficiency, find Sirius just after a second explosion in 24 hours shakes Britain, and send him without trial to Azkaban. Finally, Hagrid, who has been in hiding most of the day but that has been able to get in contact through the fireplaces with a few of his friends, including McGonagall and maybe a few others, thus iniciating the stories about the "boy who lived", arrives to Privet Drive, iniciating the story. Hope that helps, Grey Wolf [1] The Evil Overlord List is Copyright 1996-1997 by Peter Anspach [2] Another possible explanation is that an AK hitting a love shield causes the explosion, but I prefer the one I've included. From muniloopin at yahoo.com Wed Aug 7 10:25:44 2002 From: muniloopin at yahoo.com (muniloopin) Date: Wed, 07 Aug 2002 10:25:44 -0000 Subject: multiple-heirs/secrative Ollivander; WAS:Why Wasn't Hagrid Cleared? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42247 Grey Wolf wrote: >For most people, there could be any number of Heirs going around >(just check the list.The listees have worked up lots of theories to >have even more heirs running around). The meaning of "heir" according to webster is: 1 : one who inherits or is entitled to inherit property 2 : one who inherits or is entitled to succeed to a hereditary rank, title, or office 3 : one who receives or is entitled to receive some endowment or quality from a parent or predecessor. So, a heir is likely to be a descendant but a descendant is not always a heir. for the 3rd meaning (or in some cases even the 2nd), even a direct lineage is not necessary. a "true heir" is probably the descendant who is gifted with the same qualities as the ancestor in question. so though it is heighly probable that there are many "descendants" of the founders running around, there need not be any "true heir". I think that IF harry turns out to be a descendant of Gryffindor (and it seems like he would), JKR will HAVE to make him the heir of Slytherin as well - otherwise the whole theme of the books would be different. I suspect that the fact that Harry COULD open the chamber of secret is a hint to us that he IS after all the heir. The most powerful counter arguement to this is that Dumbledore said that Riddle was the last remaining descendant of Slytherin...either Dumbedore does not know about Harry's ancestory or Harry is a "heir" but not a direct descendant. >Strangely enough, one of the few people that might now who Voldemort >is is Ollivander, since he knows the wand that he sold him. Before >you ask, though, there are two ways out of this. Voldemort may have >bought the wand just before iniciating the Reign of Terror, when he >was not yet persecuted by justice (in which case Ollivander doesn't >know), or Dumbledore told Ollivander when he was looking for >information about Voldemort, in this case the sort of wand he uses. it seems to me that both Ollivander and Dumbledore are extra-MOM entities. I mean that both seem to be autonomous bodies who do not necessarily or always tow the ministry line. I can see that wand makers may have some kind of proffessional code of conduct to not reveal many things they would know in course of their work. muniloopin From eloiseherisson at aol.com Wed Aug 7 11:49:04 2002 From: eloiseherisson at aol.com (eloiseherisson at aol.com) Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2002 07:49:04 EDT Subject: Does Snape have a life-debt to Harry? (was: Who was witness to the killing of Ja Message-ID: <133.1275e6d6.2a826330@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 42248 Not long after I joined this group, *I* asked one of those dumb questions, too. In my caes, it was 'How does the Fidelius Charm work?' and I feel this must be related to the question of whether anyone was able to be witness to James' and Lily's deaths. The Fidelius Charm is the major problem I have (or had - see later: I'm sorry, this is one of the posts when I change my view halfway through) with Pip's wonderful 'It Wuz Snape' theory. Now, my question is this: is the Fidelius charm *completely* broken the moment the Secret keeper divulges his secret? In other words, having given the information to one person, is it then freely available to *everyone*. If so, then Pettigrew having divulged the secret, Snape may well have been able to find his way to Godric's Hollow in advance (the details of their whereabouts were immediately known by Hagrid, presumably via Dumbledore, thus implying that they did know in advance where the Potters were and that the Fidelius Charm gave some kind of enhanced amnesia, or an inability to find them/discuss their presence in the place where they knew they were). But this poses a problem. As soon as Pettigrew told Voldemort the secret, the Potters' whereabouts would no longer be secret, Dumbledore would have (or certainly could have) realised that the secret had been divulged, the Potters might have been surprised by visitors, there are all sorts of possibilities. It would be too risky to do it in advance. So if the Fidelius Charm *is* made completely void by the Secret Keeper's divulgence, then the only sensible course would have been for Pettigrew to take Voldemort to Godric's Hollow, before telling the secret to Voldemort and allowing him to find them. Snape could only be present if Voldemort chose to take him along and he could only have been the one to warn Lily if Voldemort sent him into the house first. OTOH, perhaps the secret does not become generally available on its divulgence. In this case, Voldemort and those whom he told would be the only ones to know and again, Snape could only be there by invitation as he wouldn't be able to find the Potters. In this scenario, the charm is broken only by the Potters' deaths. Except.....Harry was still alive, so the charm still should have still worked, shouldn't it? I think the first version of the charm is correct. Otherwise, how did Dumbledore know that something had happened, how did he know to despatch Hagrid (and incidentaly, where did he go, since it was apparently not Godric's Hollow and he was evidently not at Hogwarts? Summoned to the MOM, I presume.) So, in summary, my understanding of the Fidelius Charm precludes Snape's being the one to warn Lily unless he was there *with* Voldemort. HOWEVER......No 3 child put PS/SS on in the car for the umpteenth time today and I was struck by the dream Harry has on his first night at Hogwarts. Harry's dreams seem to be significant, yes? Ther dream ends with the flash of green light which we know subsequently is his remembrance of the Avada Kedavra. Leading up to this, we have a voice from Quirrel's turban, urging him to change from Gryffindor to Slytherin (and Hagrid says an odd thing when he tells Harry about his parents' deaths along the lines of, 'why he didn't try to get them on his side before, I don't know'), followed by his seeing Snape and Draco. Which leads me to wonder.....*did* Harry hear Voldemort trying to convert the Potters before killing them (I think the time-scale probably precludes this)? *Does* Harry have a subliminal memory of Snape's and Lucius' presence? We know that Draco looks like his father and in a dream, Harry could easily interpret one as the other. Harry has no memory of this dream, so I ask myself why JKR included it, if not to give some clues as to the events of that night. Which means that I am arguing myself round to the view that Snape probably was a witness and even that in desperation he may have been the one to warn Lily, but that he was present as part of Voldemort's team. My scenario already has Snape hating himself for failing to save the Potters and hating Harry for being the one to bring Voldemort down. Here's another wonderful wedge of angst for him. Not only has he been forced to witness the event he warned them of and tried to prevent, now he has both failed to redeem his life-debt to Jamesand possibly found himself in *Harry's* life-debt, as if he did risk all to warn Lily in Voldemort's presence, Voldemort would surely have killed him next. A life-debt to Harry? Is that the secret Hagrid knows about Snape's hatred that he won't tell Harry? Poor Severus! Eloise Who got so bound up in this theory that she forgot she'd set a bath to run until she heard the water dripping down through the kitchen ceiling. Oops! [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From rvotaw at i-55.com Wed Aug 7 12:54:16 2002 From: rvotaw at i-55.com (Richelle Votaw) Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2002 07:54:16 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Does Snape have a life-debt to Harry? (was: Who was witness to the killing of Ja References: <133.1275e6d6.2a826330@aol.com> Message-ID: <00aa01c23e11$8aa17b40$22a1cdd1@istu757> No: HPFGUIDX 42249 Eloise writes: > Which leads me to wonder.....*did* Harry hear Voldemort trying to convert the > Potters before killing them (I think the time-scale probably precludes this)? I don't really think Voldemort tried to convert the Potters. Hagrid says he never did, and we have Lily's plea before she is AK'd, "I'll do anything." Which pretty much sounds like, if you'll spare my child I'll become your follower. But converting them was not his intention apparently. Richelle From coriolan_cmc at hotmail.com Wed Aug 7 13:18:33 2002 From: coriolan_cmc at hotmail.com (coriolan_cmc2001) Date: Wed, 07 Aug 2002 13:18:33 -0000 Subject: The Fateful Night (VERY long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42250 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "grey_wolf_c" wrote: > Presenting a new theory by Grey Wolf... Most ingeniously argued. . We don't know what happens > to Voldemort's body, but AKs normally leave the body behind). My guess is that Voldemort's body did not remain intact. It seems to me that he would have tried to resurrect his original body if it still existed rather than go through the complicated flesh, blood and bone procedure. Even if that were unfeasible, it seems he would have at least pondered the option if his corpse still existed. If his body had not been destroyed, it would also mean that there are two Voldemorts out there, one living and one dead. Voldemort's physical destruction may have resulted from a side effect of the "love shield" which protected Harry, or may have been an effect of the various "experiments" the Dark Lord said that he performed upon himself in his quest for immortality (GoF, Chap. 33) - CMC From ian_c_malone at hotmail.com Wed Aug 7 12:48:34 2002 From: ian_c_malone at hotmail.com (Ian Malone) Date: Wed, 07 Aug 2002 08:48:34 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: "It wuz Snape" Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42251 >Lost Feyth >Who is enjoying the It wuz Snape theory, but still likes the idea of it >being Lupin. I think one of the main questions of this 3RD MAN theory is that whoever it was should have been killed. The main question is; Why didn't Voldemort kill the 3RD MAN? Obviously, if the 3rd Man is someone we have alreayd met (or will meet in 5 or 6) then they were somehow spared, or got away, or survived. What about this theory, the 3RD MAN was Harry, gone back in time to save his parents, but he couldn't do it in time? (Why would he call his mother 'Lily'? Hmmm.... ) --Ian From marc.nguyen at greenheck.com Wed Aug 7 13:37:33 2002 From: marc.nguyen at greenheck.com (Nguyen, Marc) Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2002 08:37:33 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Is Snape safe? (was Re: Who was witness to the k illing of James and Lily?) Message-ID: <61E2AF8C78F2D211B0B70008C7F921D50616A92B@orion2.greenops.com> No: HPFGUIDX 42252 Pip wrote: ""But we *know* Dumbledore is refusing to tell Harry things about Snape. He neatly avoids saying 'Snape hates you' in PS/SS [p. 217] and he won't tell Harry why he knows Snape no longer supports Voldemort. [ GoF p. 524 UK hardback]. Not telling Harry there was Someone Else present when his parents were killed fits right in with - the secrets surrounding Snape. Yup, 'it wuz Snape'."" I write: We were all wondering what Snape's task was, and some think it was to go back and spy on Voldemort. I think that's not possible anymore, because of his actions in SS. Don't you think that Voldemort, through Quirrel, would know about Snape trying to help Harry and not him if Snape was stil a loyal DE? Also, I think there is good canon to give Crouch Jr the "loyal servant" tag that Voldemort uses for the 3 missing DE in the graveyard. He said that he had to go free this servant, that the servant made the Triwizard Cup a portkey, and we know that Crouch Jr was the one that did that and he had to be freed from his father. Marc (who finally found some Bertie Bott's Every Flavor Beans and is pleasantly surprised that they taste like what they're called. Just like the book! Although I haven't tried the bad ones like vomit, earwax, and booger. dirt, sardine, pepper, and spinach all tasted like the real deal) From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Wed Aug 7 14:46:14 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Wed, 07 Aug 2002 14:46:14 -0000 Subject: The Fateful Night (VERY long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42253 CMC wrote: > My guess is that Voldemort's body did not remain intact. It seems to > me that he would have tried to resurrect his original body if it > still existed rather than go through the complicated flesh, blood and > bone procedure. Even if that were unfeasible, it seems he would have > at least pondered the option if his corpse still existed. As you may have read, I myself go for the "there wasn't enough left of Voldemort's body to make a smudge on the ground" theory, but that wasn't the place to speak about it. I was just expressing what we didn't know and what looks most probable. The fact is that I don't think that the WW wouldn't have believed that Voldemort is dead without a body there. I get away with it by saying that there WAS some of his body left -enough to have some clever muggle or wizard to identify him (is there some magical equivalent to the ADN teast?). > If his body had not been destroyed, it would also mean that there are > two Voldemorts out there, one living and one dead. There is always bits and pieces of your body around, all of them dead: your skin flakes and falls every day of your life, and even if by the time you're fifty you've flaked enough to build your body over several times, there aren't several "you"s aound, one living, and the rest dead. Dead meat is dead meat. Without a soul (defining by soul whatever is that ghost are made up in Potterverse), the body of Voldemort is nothing but feed for the worms. > Voldemort's physical destruction may have resulted from a side effect > of the "love shield" which protected Harry, or may have been an > effect of the various "experiments" the Dark Lord said that he > performed upon himself in his quest for immortality (GoF, Chap. 33) > > - CMC Or, as I said in the long post, it may be caused by the AK hitting him. Or by any other of a dozen reasons I could come up with. If you want, you can consider an addendum to section 2: i) What happened to Voldemort's body and why Although I included it in the (e): Number of corpses. It is just another of the places where what little information we've got allows for multiple interpretations. Hope that helps, Grey Wolf From pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk Wed Aug 7 14:51:48 2002 From: pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk (bluesqueak) Date: Wed, 07 Aug 2002 14:51:48 -0000 Subject: "It wuz Snape" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42254 : > >Yup, 'it wuz Snape'. > > > >Pip > >Squeak! Grey Wolf writes: > There is just a tiny little problem with all these theories about > who was there with Voldemort: No-one is supposed to be able to find > the house where the Potters were living, since they had cast a > secret-keeper spell on themselves. In fact, you can't even suggest > that Dumbledore knew the secret, since not even him knew who was > the *real* secret keeper, and I assume you need to be guided, or > helped in some other way, by the secret keeper to get to the house. > Thus, no Snape, no Sirius, no Lupin (a pity! I really liked that > idea - it explains neatly Lupin's surprise). I think that you've answered this objection yourself to some extent in your later post # 42246 when you say > At any rate, the place could be found by non-secret keepers: Sirius > knows where the Potters are living, and he is not part of the > spell, and so does Hagrid and, I'd imagine, Dumbledore, who gave > directions to Hagrid. Snape could easily have been in the 'need to know' category for the very reason I have him in Godric's Hollow - there could forseeably be a situation where he finds out that Voldemort has discovered the Potters hiding place, but has not enough time to warn them via Dumbledore. Possibly the secret is 'hidden' even from the people who know it until the charm is betrayed - when they can then go straight to the hiding place. Alternatively, once the Secret Keeper reveals the Secret, the Fidelius Charm is completely destroyed, and *anyone* can find out where the Potters are. Whoever (possibly Voldemort himself) revealed to Snape that the Potters hideout was discovered may have given him the address as well. [Not as odd as it sounds - "We've found the Potters! Somewhere called Godrics Hollow, at The Kiln, Voldemort's going there now" is a plausible sentence that would alert Snape, tell him where to go, and *not* reveal WHO betrayed the Potters.] Tim A writes: > I have a different theory on who could have been in the house. > Peter Pettigrew. He was the secret keeper. He was in cahoots with > Voldemort. Harry heard "Lily, take Harry and go! It's him! Go! > I'll hold him off---" (POA, pg 240 US/hb) while learning the > patronus with the boggart. Harry assumed it was his father, but it > could have been anybody on Voldemort's side whom the Potter's > trusted. That's why I think if it wasn't James' voice he heard, it > must have been Peter's. Problem A: If Voldemort is coming to get them, only Peter could be the one who betrayed the Potters (*they* know who their Secret Keeper is). He'd be the last person to trust if he burst in and told them he was just ahead of Voldemort. Problem B: If 'it wuz Peter', why should it be kept a secret? There are [see below] reasons for keeping Snape's involvement a secret, but Peter at the beginning of PoA is a supposedly dead hero, who died trying to capture the traitor Sirius Black. If Hagrid had found Peter in the ruins the assumption by everyone but the Potters [and Sirius and Voldemort] would have been that Peter had suspected Black and rushed round to try and warn the Potters - but was too late. More evidence of Peter's heroism, and absolutely *no* reason to hide the fact that there was Someone Else with Voldemort and the Potters when the house blew up. "Ian Malone" (Cooper) wrote: > I have to say, 'It wuz Snape' is one of the best formulated > theories I have heard in a long time. It makes complete sense with > the series. I was blown away when all the points seemed to tie > together neatly. I am completely ready to embrace this theory. > [Blushes, shuffles her feet, and says 'aww, you should see MAGIC DISHWASHER/Spying Game'] Cooper: > HOWEVER; > [I KNEW there was going to be a 'However'] > A. Why did the Potter's house collapse? It has been established > that AK cannot blow a house to pieces. > > However, at the end of GoF, as Harry is fleeing from the Death > Eaters and Voldemort in the Graveyard, one of them casts a spell on > him (sorry, don't have the books in front of me, no chapter and > page) and he dives behind a grave-stone for cover. The grave-stone cracks as the spell hits it. > > Could this mean that certain spells can do physical damage to > property? Since Snape is an expert dueller, maybe he went all out > on Voldemort, and in turn Voldemort went all out on him, bringing > the house down to a pile of rubble. > > But in that event, it would had to have happened AFTER Voldemort > AK'd Harry, but he would be in no state to cast spells. It couldn't > have happened BEFORE, because wizard or not, Harry wouldn't have > survived a house collapsing on him. > > This leaves me saying, hmmm... Actually, Harry DID survive a house falling on him. So could Snape. Wizards do. Neville bounces when dropped out of a window, Hagrid is shocked at the thought that a car crash could have killed the Potters, I think other posts have mentioned other evidence that wizards survive things that would kill a muggle. And in fact, there is considerable evidence from World War II and other wars that even MUGGLES can survive a bomb hitting and a house collapsing on top of you. The timing for the house blowing up is definitely during/just after Voldemort attacks Harry. Voldemort puts Snape to one side, so to speak, kills Lily, attacks Harry - and the world explodes. Why, we don't know. An effect of the love shield? A side effect of a rebounding' AK [which has never been done before]? Or possibly the earlier fights between James/Voldemort and Snape/Voldemort *had* already done some structural damage, and it actually took very little force from the final set of spells to make the house collapse. > > B. Where did Snape go and what did Snape do that night > they "parted ways" in GoF? > > Dumbledore says Snape knows what must be done, and Snape agrees, > then he leaves in a huff. Many people assume he went back to > Voldemort's side to start his two-faced spy business again, but > this wouldn't make sense with'It wuz Snape'. > > So, what would Snape have done that night? > Haven't the foggiest, frankly [grin]. But I do think that Harry's GoF idea that Snape has resumed spying on Voldemort is a herring so red you could use it to stop the traffic. After PS/SS and Snape trying a counter-curse to save Harry and then trying to stop Quirrel stealing the stone, his cover as a loyal Voldemort supporter is blown, blown, BLOWN. And it would actually have been *easier* to stop Quirrel stealing the Stone if Snape had been able to pretend helpful loyalty to Voldemort 'but Dumbledore doesn't really trust me, you know, he gave me this job to keep an eye on me. I don't know how to get past that dratted dog -do you have any good ideas? Oh,and why don't you let me take care of Potter - I always hated his father, I'd LOVE to get rid of him for you - oops, damm, that spell didn't work, well never mind, I'm sure I'll get Potter next time...' Etcetera. Which is why I think Snape's cover was blown before the attempted theft of the Philosopher's Stone, at least as far as Voldemort was concerned. As I said, Quirrelmort appears extremely unsurprised that Snape was his opponent. > C. After Hagrid discovered Snape in the rubble, what happened to > Snape? He just lost a duel to Voldemort, and had a house fall down > on him, certainly he would be in no fine mood to get up a go on his > own. > Snape manages quite well in PoA (See Chapters 19 to 22), when he's got knocked out by the Trio. Not quite the same damage level, but he still manages on regaining conciousness to conjure up stretchers, take everyone back to Hogwarts, talk sensibly to Fudge and [MAGIC DISHWASHER warning - see post # 39662 for the reasoning behind the following] play an undercover tag team game with Dumbledore with the aim of keeping the real facts from Fudge. All this AFTER he's been knocked out so badly that he was completely unconscious for half an hour. Snape is *tough*. > It is also fairly safe to assume that Snape would have to be gone > by the time Sirius arrived, because if Sirius saw Snape at the > Potter's house, he would have gone ballistic. So Snape left > sometime after Hagrid arrived and before Sirius arrived. > This is in keeping with Hagrid's comment that "I'd had me orders from Dumbledore ... Dumbledore said Harry was ter go ter his aunt an' uncle's." [PoA UK hardback p154]. Dumbledore knew enough about the situation to give Hagrid very specific orders. It's entirely feasible that another set of orders was that immediately Harry was rescued, Snape was to leave him with Hagrid and get the heck out! (And Hagrid was to 'forget' he'd seen Snape). You see, another big question about That Night is - why did Dumbledore send Hagrid? Hagrid is probably not going to be very much help in a head-to-head against Voldemort, but for pulling people out of heavy rubble there's no one finer. That Dumbledore knew a)that Harry was alive b)that he needed to send Hagrid c) he needn't bother to come himself, suggests that he had ALREADY received detailed information about the Godric's Hollow situation. Snape, as a spy, would presumably have some means of sending Dumbledore emergency information, and would have had plenty of motivation to pick a means that didn't rely on capturable owls or fires you might be unable to get to because you're tied up. Snape, under the rubble, would have known that Harry was alive [trust me on this one. A one year old child who's just been attacked by a painfully bright flash of light and then found himself in a dark hole under a pile of bricks? He'd have been screaming his head off]. Snape, unlike any DE's who might have been with Voldemort, would have had the motivation to give Dumbledore the information that Harry was alive, Voldemort had been badly weakened, possibly killed, and they needed someone good at heavy lifting RIGHT NOW, please. And then, obeying orders, Snape got the hell out. > So where did he go, and how did he get away so quickly? The Night- > Bus? I am assuming that Sanpe was too weak to apparate, but maybe > it's just a simple answer. He apparated back to Hogwarts to report > to Dumbledore. Possibly - though not to Hogwarts itself, as you can't apparate there. Or possibly back to DEdom, because Dumbledore had realised that with Voldemort imitating a wisp of marsh gas there would still be a brief time period where Snape could continue undercover, possibly to give useful information on who, if anyone, looked like they'd continue in their evil ways, or possibly to try and find out who was *genuinely* Imperio'd. I dunno if Snape would have had the strength to apparate - possibly Hagrid had used a Portkey to get to the Hollow? Or a broom? If he had, and if Snape had to use it, that would also explain why Hagrid seems to be a bit stuck when he's working out how to get Harry to the Dursley's and ends up gratefully accepting 'Sirius Black's' offer of a flying motorbike. I assume that you CAN'T apparate with a small child - Hagrid possibly can't apparate, but I would assume Lily Potter probably could - and that would be why she doesn't apparate away. Apparating would have left Harry behind, to be killed. > > D. Why does Snape hate Harry? > He doesn't. There, now, I can hear you gasping. This is a very, very complicated argument, spread over several posts. For the record, they are #39273, #39662, #42459. But basically, the argument is that Snape's apparent hatred of Harry is a cover story, and that for some reason we don't yet know, it is essential that Harry believes that Snape genuinely hates him. Mind you, I don't say that Snape is *nice*. He might well not like 'James Potter Jr.' very much at all. But any genuine dislike is being hugely exaggerated for cover purposes. > > E. My brain hurts, we are done for this evening. > Nearly. But not quite. Another interesting little point in support of 'It wuz Snape'. In PoA p. 265 Snape says to Harry: "You'd have died like your father, too arrogant to believe you might be mistaken in Black..." How does Snape know James *died* believing in Black? Why does he say 'too arrogant to believe you might be mistaken'? If he wasn't there, it would be more natural to assume that James died *knowing* he was mistaken in Black. Unless, of course, he rushed in to warn the Potters, telling James that Black [who Snape thought was the Secret Keeper] had betrayed them; only to have James [who knew the Secret Keeper was Peter Pettigrew] say something like "No! It can't have been Sirius! And then Voldemort arrived, and there was no more time... Pip MAGIC DISHWASHER - see posts #39662 for the original, #39854 for Grey Wolf's summary, and #40044 for the Spying Game Part II. But reserve a spare day for reading all the replies - there's over a hundred! From bard7696 at aol.com Wed Aug 7 15:01:40 2002 From: bard7696 at aol.com (darrin_burnett) Date: Wed, 07 Aug 2002 15:01:40 -0000 Subject: The Fateful Night (VERY long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42255 Grey wolf wrote: (I snipped almost everything, because I find almost everything else reasonable.) :) > > Voldemort then goes into the house, with the intention of paying Peter > for being a traitor: giving him Lily. However, he's a profesional evil overlord, and thus knows rule #78. and thus, when after several warnings Lily fails to get out of the way, she is summarily AKed (rules #4. and #6. will not gloat over my enemies' predicament before killing them.>). > included. I really don't think V-Mort tried all that hard to spare Lily, based on what we know, which of course is pretty sketchy. In fact, I'd argue that he doesn't even meet the reasonably practical standard. And doesn't canon really only give us one warning, maybe two? I keep coming back to the fact that warning or no warning, there were other options at V-Mort's disposal besides AK. More circumstantial, it seems that in the big Wormtail pleading for his life scene in PoA, wouldn't he bring up that he "tried to have V- Mort save Lily?" even if, in a bit of spin doctoring, he'd leave out that he wanted Lily for himself? I believe Lily was never meant to be spared and the V-Mort simply wanted to kill Harry first because that was his primary mission and he had a reasonable assumption that Dumbledore would figure out what was going on fairly quickly. At best, V-Mort would have left Lily alone because she's not worth his notice, which explains Riddle's "Your mother needn't have died," routine, which may or may not be true. But in the end, I believe a specific bargain to spare Lily doesn't wash. Darrin -- UNLESS we go back to the "Lily diving in the way of a blast at the last second" theory. From bdmorrp at budget.state.ny.us Wed Aug 7 14:55:13 2002 From: bdmorrp at budget.state.ny.us (erisedstraeh2002) Date: Wed, 07 Aug 2002 14:55:13 -0000 Subject: Godric's Hollow/Godric Gryffindor any relation? In-Reply-To: <003b01c23db9$7d24c100$68a1cdd1@istu757> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42256 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Richelle Votaw" wrote: > Jennifer writes: > > > I was just thinking about this similarity in names. . Was Godric's > Hollow named after Godric Gryffindor? Is there any canon evidence of this, > or is this just thrown in to make us wonder? and Richelle responds: > I think it is. There's no direct canon (that I know of) to support it, but > how many Godrics can there be? now me: I read in one of JKR's interviews that her editor (who she referred to as "brilliant") had not noticed that there is a relationship between Godric Gryffindor and Godric's Hollow. So I would take that as direct canon to support that there is a relationship! In a post I did yesterday (#42191), I provide some fascinating info I found on St. Godric which I think shows many parallels to Harry and James (I'm still waiting for an on-the-board response, although I have received several nice off-the-board notes!). I think there is some sort of protection inherent in Harry's bloodline, and I think it's because he is Gryffindor's descendant. One of the stories about St. Godric involves him protecting a stag from hunters seeking to kill it - as baby Harry is protected from death by *something* (either his mother's sacrifice or something we have yet to find out about). Perhaps this is why Voldemort refers to Lily's sacrifice as "old magic?" Perhaps it only works in certain places, like Godric's Hollow? Moreover, St. Godric's hermitage is protected by a "well-nigh impenetrable brushwood of thorms and briars" which to me is a strong parallel to the privet hedge, which offers a protection when Harry is with the Dursleys that Voldemort refers to as "ancient magic" (once again, the protection only works in a certain place). In an interview, JKR said that Harry won't know "for a little while the *whole truth* about why he is protected as long as he lives with his family," so we know there's more to this than we've found out so far. And when Harry needs protection from the dementors, he conjures a stag with the "expecto patronus" charm, which was James' animagus and was also the animal St. Godric protected from the hunters (plus the Medieval Latin etymology of patronus is "patron saint"). In another interview (I just love trying to piece this together - thanks to Aberforth's Goat for the great interview compilation!), JKR said that "Book 4 is the end of an era for Harry. He's been very protected until now." If my "protection is in the bloodline" theory is accurate, then does this mean that Harry's lost some of his protection now that his blood is in Voldemort? But why would Dumbledore look triumphant at this (I refuse to believe he's a baddie!)? Where my theory falls down, however (and I'd love any thoughts on this), is - if the protection is in the bloodline, why was Voldemort able to kill James in Godric's Hollow? Was James perhaps killed elsewhere? I read a neat piece on the Lexicon about that theory, which notes the look of surprise on Lupin's face when Harry tells him that he's heard his father's voice when the dementors approach, and also notes that we don't see James in the scene in the film that JKR added herself. But then I think about how at the end of PoA, Sirius says that he saw Harry's parents' bodies (*plural*) when he went to their destroyed house. Seems a bit farfetched to think that James was killed elsewhere and then brought back to the Godric's Hollow house, but in this universe, anything's possible! Phyllis who's dying to read the next 3 books but will be very sad not to have any more to look forward to From Cornet83 at aol.com Wed Aug 7 13:59:23 2002 From: Cornet83 at aol.com (Cornet83 at aol.com) Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2002 09:59:23 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Fateful Night (VERY long) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42257 Grey Wolf your theory is great and ties up a lot of loose ends, but I still have a few questions about it. 1. How did Sirius know what had happened? Are you presuming Dumbledore contacted him and told him? That wouldn't make sense to me, especially because it seems everyone, including Dumbledore suspected Sirius of being the betraying spy. 2. How does Dumbledore know in the first place? You stated "" I agree that having Dumbledore know what happened is pretty much the only way Hagrid could have gotten there so fast, but I want to know how he knew. Dumbledore just"knowing" it happened just doesn't work for me. Do you have a theory as to how he found out so quickly? mariahisable ~hoping the answers to her questions aren't insanely obvious to everyone else and that for once, someone will actually respond and answer them:) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From rvotaw at i-55.com Wed Aug 7 16:17:58 2002 From: rvotaw at i-55.com (rvotaw at i-55.com) Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2002 11:17:58 -0500 (CDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Is Snape safe?/It wuz Snape Message-ID: <2320010.1028737078650.JavaMail.root@webmail.i-55.com> No: HPFGUIDX 42258 > Marc writes: > > We were all wondering what Snape's task was, and some think it was to go > back and spy on Voldemort. I think that's not possible anymore, because of > his actions in SS. Don't you think that Voldemort, through Quirrel, would > know about Snape trying to help Harry and not him if Snape was stil a loyal > DE? All Voldemort knew was that Snape prevented *Quirrell* from killing Harry. Based on this, and the careful wording by Snape when he and Quirrell were talking in the dark forest, Voldemort could still have hope for Snape. If Voldemort's gullible enough, he could be made to believe that Snape wanted to find the stone for him (Voldemort) and keep Harry alive until he (Snape) could kill him himself. I still think Snape can return to Voldemort, if he has something to offer him. A spy at Hogwarts might still be handy. On the topic of Snape being present when James and Lily died, if this is true, it would add a lot more depth to Snape's hatred of James and his life debt. If he indeed went to help James and Lily he would be angry with himself for not saving James life and thus repaying the debt. On the other hand, if he was there as a death eater with Voldemort he could be angry at himself again, for one of two reasons: 1) He was too big a coward to stand up to Voldemort in person and it cost the Potters their lives. 2) He was forced to stand by and do nothing if he was instructed by Dumbledore not to let it be known he was helping the Potters. It would be hard for to live with himself if he had to stand by and watch people die who, even though he hated, had done nothing to deserve such a death. I'm sure there are other reasons in addition to those that all add up to the same thing: Snape missed an opportunity to repay his life debt to James and it can never be truly repaid. He can help keep Harry alive, yes, but it's not quite the same. Richelle ---------- Pip wrote: ""But we *know* Dumbledore is refusing to tell Harry things about Snape. He neatly avoids saying 'Snape hates you' in PS/SS [p. 217] and he won't tell Harry why he knows Snape no longer supports Voldemort. [ GoF p. 524 UK hardback]. Not telling Harry there was Someone Else present when his parents were killed fits right in with - the secrets surrounding Snape. Yup, 'it wuz Snape'."" I write: We were all wondering what Snape's task was, and some think it was to go back and spy on Voldemort. I think that's not possible anymore, because of his actions in SS. Don't you think that Voldemort, through Quirrel, would know about Snape trying to help Harry and not him if Snape was stil a loyal DE? Also, I think there is good canon to give Crouch Jr the "loyal servant" tag that Voldemort uses for the 3 missing DE in the graveyard. He said that he had to go free this servant, that the servant made the Triwizard Cup a portkey, and we know that Crouch Jr was the one that did that and he had to be freed from his father. Marc (who finally found some Bertie Bott's Every Flavor Beans and is pleasantly surprised that they taste like what they're called. Just like the book! Although I haven't tried the bad ones like vomit, earwax, and booger. dirt, sardine, pepper, and spinach all tasted like the real deal) ________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/ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From metal_tiara at hotmail.com Wed Aug 7 15:13:44 2002 From: metal_tiara at hotmail.com (sophineclaire) Date: Wed, 07 Aug 2002 15:13:44 -0000 Subject: Where are the dead buried?/ Wizarding burial rites In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42259 "Christie wrote:" > One suggestion: they were creamated and their ashes scattered, hence > no gravesite or memorial exists. Since we have no evidence to the > contrary, one assumes that wizard burial rites are more or less > concurrent with Muggle ceremonies, which allows for some variety as > to disposal of the remains. There could also be the concern about the use of a dead body for dark arts and other nasty things. I don't think it would be particularly pleasant to see Uncle Bilius come to tea when he's been dead for 3 months, and to AK you no less... I'd say it would be more so in the case of Lily, James and, to a lesser degree Cedric (as someone mentioned in a previous reply). There's also the risk of Muggle Excavation. Yes, guess there maybe muggle repelling charms to protect gravesites, but they only seem to last as long as there is someone or something to keep them up. If we assume that Wizards have been around for more than a couple of Millenia ( via the date on Ollivander's sign) then would it be safe to assume that Wizards, at some point, had elaborate or cultural burial rites like other early civilizations?. I could see problems brewing for the WW as old repelling charms are disintergrating and London is expanding and all of a sudden, a huddle of graves are found containing bird feathers (Quills), sticks of wood (wands), and a deflated red ball (Quaffle). Of course the MOM would come and oblivate anyone who found the body (which would be subsequently removed) but after a century or two of this, it would have to be decreed that all bodies must be cremated for the sake of time, energy, and saftey. Taking Voldemort into account, I could see why he opted to search for immortality. If his body is cremated when he dies ( his initial worry now), he will not be able to come back or be resurrected due to lack of body. Years of research and self experimentation later, Voldemort discovers a way to achieve immortality AND has found a back up in case he does lose his body. So, Voldie skips along to the Potters; knowing full well that if anything goes wrong, he will live but he will just have to search for a new body. Sophineclaire -who was always interested in mummies. From beccablue42 at hotmail.com Wed Aug 7 15:38:30 2002 From: beccablue42 at hotmail.com (beccablue42) Date: Wed, 07 Aug 2002 15:38:30 -0000 Subject: Excuse me Professor, but are you a Professor In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42260 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "dicentra63" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "bboy_mn" wrote: > > > Hermione notices his name on his > > briefcase. It says in old worn out flaking gold letters, PROFESSOR > Lupin. > > "Professor R.J. Lupin," to be exact. I had a thought: what if Lupin is named after his father who was a professor (ooh! or he has the same initials as his mom and *she* was a professor!)? Might that explain the worn hand-me-down look of his briefcase? We know nothing about his parents, and you'd think it might have been mentioned by Dumbledore or another long-standing member of the Hogwarts staff if Lupin was a second-generation Hogwarts professor, but it is a possibility nonetheless. Just a random thought. Grasping at straws, really. Becca From Elvishooked at hotmail.com Wed Aug 7 15:48:30 2002 From: Elvishooked at hotmail.com (elvishooked) Date: Wed, 07 Aug 2002 15:48:30 -0000 Subject: Pettigrew & hiding + Trelawney & prophecy Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42261 These subjects may have already been brought up and cleared - but it is almost impossible to go through every post to check. I can understand why Pettigrew had to be in hiding since he was supposedly the dead hero. But I could never understand why he was hiding at the Weasley's of all people. I mean - why not at some of the loyal DE's? Why would the DE's have reason to see Pettigrew as their enemy? After all, he did help Voldemort to get to James and Lily and I see no reason why the DE's should not still trust and protect him? Trelawney. When Harry tells Dumbledore of her true prophecy about Voldemort coming back, Dumbledore tells Harry (with a wink, yes) that it would bring her accurate prophecies to the amount of TWO. I wonder if that meant anything - does Dumbledore know of another accurate prophecy that she came up with some time in the past - and wonder if it had anything to do with the downfall of Voldemort back then... Inge From bdmorrp at budget.state.ny.us Wed Aug 7 16:00:57 2002 From: bdmorrp at budget.state.ny.us (erisedstraeh2002) Date: Wed, 07 Aug 2002 16:00:57 -0000 Subject: Why Wasn't Hagrid Cleared? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42262 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "crana285" wrote: > I think Hagrid's name was cleared after > CoS - this is why he was allowed to become a teacher in PoA if I > remember rightly. Please tell me if I've got it wrong and it says > somewhere that he is still considered to have been responsible for > the first attacks! Hi, Rosie (and thanks for the welcome) - In my original post, I was referring to why Hagrid wasn't cleared after the *first* attacks, once Riddle had turned himself into Voldemort, but before the second attacks happened. Grey Wolf (thanks, GW!) pointed out that Dumbledore makes it clear at the end of CoS that few people know that Voldemort was once called Tom Riddle, so that answers my initial question, but raises others (primarily, why would Dumbledore keep this a secret if it would have cleared Hagrid in the first place and kept Hagrid from going to Azkaban when the attacks resumed 50 years later?). Grey Wolf offers some possible answers in his post (#42193). You are absolutely correct - Hagrid's name was cleared at the end of CoS since it was then revealed that Riddle had framed Hagrid the first time. But now it's no longer a secret that Voldemort was once called Tom Riddle - I wonder whether this will play into the plot in the future, since it appears clear that Dumbledore wanted it kept a secret previously? Phyllis From jodel at aol.com Wed Aug 7 17:24:52 2002 From: jodel at aol.com (jodel at aol.com) Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2002 13:24:52 EDT Subject: The AK curse and related/unrelated oddments Message-ID: <48.f9282a8.2a82b1e4@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 42263 Topic 1: The Avada Kedavra Curse Avada Kadavra by its very name hints that it has a different developmental track than the two other unforgivables. (They are from Latin, it is from Arabic.) It is quite possible that it was introduced to Western Europe later than the other two. But it is highly unlikely that it was an invention of Lord Voldemort. For one thing. If it had been invented within the last 50 years I doubt that the official statement regarding it is that there is *no* way to block it. It is a good deal more likely that their official line would be that no one has *found* the way to block it *yet* and active research would be widely known to be going on with it. My own pet theory on AK is that it was developed around the time of the earliest Crusades, but that the Saracens were VERY careful not to allow this particular curse to fall into the hands of the Infidels. And so the matter rested for some centuries. Until, that is, about the time of Napoleon's Egyptian Campaign, at which point it somehow got leaked. (Was Sir Richard Burton -- the explorer and scholar, not the actor -- a wizard perhaps? It is likely that whoever brought it to Europe had been living in the Middle East among the wizards of the Moslem world for some time.) [New(?) ramification on this subject:] Is there an "echo effect" between the historical progression of the mundane (Muggle) and wizarding worlds? We already know that the wizarding world wwas having problems with a prominent Dark wizard at the same time that the mundane world was undergoing a major war with a prominent enemy leader. If there IS such an "echo effect" between the histories of the two worlds (brought about as a side effect of the spells which created the formal separation that the wizarding world initiated in 1692, perhaps?) the introduction of AK into European wizardry would stand in as a parallel crisis to the mundane Industrial Revolution. Since it is obvious that the sudden introduction of a lethal curse which cannot be blocked would have major fallout upon a society which has developed in the absence of such. If the culture placed any strong emphasis upon formal dueling -- which is not certain, but sure sounds likely -- that alone would be sent arse over teakettle right there. Despite its potential for legitimate use in specific, closely proscribed situations, that would have given it a classification as unforgivable almost as soon as it was known I suspect, and small wonder. Topic 2: Benign uses for the Unforgivables As a digression, all three of the unforgivables show potential as having legitimate usages. Certainly as tools of war, or in medical situations. After all, the existence of a spell which can produce an immediate, painless death is not necessarily a curse. At the very least it would serve as a humane tool for professional butchers in the processing of meat for human consumption. Imperius could have been used in training, and may at one time have been widely used in the discipline and teaching of children. (Given some of the inhumane treatment considered right and natural to subject children to historically, it is a positively merciful one -- until inconvienient considerations of free will enter the equation) Crutius is the hardest of the three to justify. But then, torture was considered a legitimate interrogation tool for far too long in human history. But even Crutius has some thin possibility of having been developed as a tool to help rather than to harm. Particularly since it appears to affect the nervous system directly and, if so, probably does not require consiousness on the part of the victim. At the very least, I can envision it as a very crude, very quick battlefield method for finding the injured and unconsious lying on the field among the dead. (i.e., cast Crutius on the lot and if anything twitches it's still alive and treatable.) In this scenario, it would have been a VERY old spell long ago superceeded by more sophisticated techniques which do less harm to the already injured. Even in more recent times the shock of pain might have been considered a viable last-ditch treatment in some forms of illness or injury. (Brutal medical treatment is another tradition with too long a history.) Topic 3: The House in Godric's Hollow/Lasting Effects on Harry Potter As to the destruction of the Potter's house in Godric's Hollow; no, AK does not normally result in property damage on this wide a scale. The cracked tombstone, as well as what I recall (possibly inaccurately) reading as a literal translation of the Arabic curse that Avada Kedavra derives from, however, ("May this thing be utterly destroyed!") are indications that it is able to affect inanimate objects. AK also does not normaly vaporise a human body either. But this appears to be what took place when Voldemort's curse on Harry rebounded. I suggest that when the curse rebounded, it reacted with Voldemort's own inherent and collected power, producing an explosion (much like Pettigrew's curse of the Muggle gas main) in both the physical and psychic planes great enough to destroy his own body, the enclosed space in which it took place and to disperse his power in every direction. Which is why Harry caught so much of it (as in a magical transfusion). I will go so far as to suggest (despite the fact that it is almost certainly irrelevant to any future events in canon) that any surviving artifacts, particularly artifacts which were originally magical that might have been recovered from the Potter's house probably aquired an additional charge of power from their proximity to what amounts to a small (magically) nucular blast. (A parallel to radioactivity, if you will.) Harry survived the destruction of the house because he was close enough to the "blast" that not only did he absorb the magic that came his way but the physical debris was all moving away from ground zero where he was left intact except for the wound on his forehead. This feeds into another suspicion on my own part in that I believe that the reason Harry is able to resist Voldemort as well as he is, despite the fact that he and his power are far from fully developed, is because he is using power which was once Voldemort's own to resist him. This overlay of Tom Riddle's power is probably what caused the holly and phoenix feather wand to choose him in the first place. I also think that the kind of magical "breakthroughs" which plagued his childhood, are probably very much in excess of what is typical among young magical children, and are the result of his having carried, from babyhood, a sizable porportion of the power of an adult wizard. And, as apparant executor of the Potter's estate, Dumbledore would have been getting copies of the reports of these breakthroughs all through the ten years that Harry spent outside the wizarding world. Dumbledore knew the Potters. He knew them very well. He would have noticed anything reported which did not jibe with his recollections of James and Lily and the gifts that they would have passed on to their son. I suspect that some anomalies DID show up, and probably fairly early. This is the data on which his theory of the "magical transfusion" was based, which he told to Harry after the parselmouth incident. It may well be the basis of Dumbledore's look of triumph when Harry reported that his blood was used to facilitate Voldemort's return. Because, although Voldemort did indeed get enough of Lily's protection spell along with that blood to be able to physically touch Harry, I suspect that he also got something he didn't bargain on. Dumbledore has been running a gamble throughout the series so far and Voldemort has, effectively, taken the bait. By using Harry's blood to create a replica of his original body he has somehow opened up a point of vulnerability that he does not recognize. As well as having by his own actions increased the ties between him and Harry to an as yet unexplored degree. I seriously wonder whether Harry Potter even COULD be killed without repurcusions to Voldemort, now. Topic 4: Sirius Black/Peter Petigrew << Sirius Black knows that Pettigrew was the Secret Keeper because most of t he inmates of Azkaban know it - >> Sirius knows that Pettigrew was the Potter's Secret Keeper because SIRIUS was the one who got the bright idea for them to switch jobs in the first place! What Sirius learned in Azkaban was that Petigrew had been known to be a Death Eater spy in Dumbledore's ranks for the year prior to the Potter's murder. Topic 5: The Disposal of Wizard Remains <> Damn straight it's important. Would YOU want your murdered kid's body fed to a snake or used for potions ingredients? And, given anyone other than Voldemort, the latter is VERY likely. (Gives a whole new order of significance to the idea of donating your cadaver to research.) I suspect that cremation and scattering of ashes may be the traditional method of disposal of human remains in the wizarding world just out of considerations of public safety, if nothing else. It also may explain some of the faint distaste that the study of Potions in general appears to have in canon. Snape's opening speach may simply be for the purpose of provocation but there is a distinct undertone of a man who "knows" that he is facing a room full of people who do not regard his field as worthwhile/relevant. (In fanon, of course, Potions tends to fall into a grey area all too readily crossing the line between light and dark magics.) "jodel" From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Wed Aug 7 17:45:41 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Wed, 07 Aug 2002 17:45:41 -0000 Subject: The Fateful Night (VERY long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42265 mariahisable wrote: > Grey Wolf your theory is great and ties up a lot of loose ends, but I > still have a few questions about it. > > 1. How did Sirius know what had happened? Are you presuming > Dumbledore contacted him and told him? That wouldn't make sense to > me, especially because it seems everyone, including Dumbledore > suspected Sirius of being the betraying spy. I am not presuming anything. I'm unisng *canon* (I pause for "oooh"s and "aaah"s from asorted yellow-flag armed listees). To quote: (Sp. Ed. PoA ch. 19, liberal translation): Black says "The night they died I had decided to check on Peter, to know whether he was still trustworthy. But when I arrived to his den, he had already left. There was no sign of fight whatsoever. It did not give me a good feeling. I got scared. I immediately got moving towards [Harry's] parent's house. And when I saw it destroyed and their bodies... I realised what Peter had done" Thus, Sirius had a bad feeling about the empty den, and sped to the Potter's house, to find he had arrived too late. > 2. How does Dumbledore know in the first place? You stated "< > Dumbledore feels James's and Lily's death, and inmediately sends > Hagrid with orders to get Harry and take him some place safe, and to > meet with him at midnight of the next day at Privet's drive>" I agree > that having Dumbledore know what happened is pretty much the only way > Hagrid could have gotten there so fast, but I want to know how he > knew. Dumbledore just"knowing" it happened just doesn't work for me. > Do you have a theory as to how he found out so quickly? > > mariahisable No, I don't have any theory based on canon that can explain how he knew... but I can create one right away, if you need one. The original one was based loosly on the life-link from D&D: a simple spell between two wizards that informs either when the other is dead. I was thinking about that when I wrote the post, so it sort of permeated, but I understand is not canon. Thus, I'm going to grab my fellow MAGIC DISHWASHER conspiratress' (or would that be conspirationess'?), Pip's, theory: Snape was there with the rest of the DEs, and the first thing he did was inform Dumbledore of what has transpired (note that, unlike Pip's version, in my *Snape was there* he's just an onlooker, and does not blow his cover) Speaking of Pip: > I think that you've answered this objection yourself to some extent > in your later post # 42246 when you say Yes, I know there are inconsistencies between my posts of the Fateful Night (and I also know that I should have included this warning in the post, but it was long and I was tired and I forgot). When I suddenly realised -seconds after pushing the send button, as always- that the house *could* be found, I decided to write a big post putting it all toghether. It's less trying in the long run. Thus, I declare my official post as #42246, and any inconsistencies between that post and any previous one are won by the long one. Also, I'd like to point out that I believe that the fidelius charm makes the recipients invisible to everyone but the secret keeper and themselves. Thus, you can visit the house, but you always see it empty, even if you know where to look. This may have coloured my explanations in the "Facts" section of my post. If it has, I am sorry. Hope that helps, Grey Wolf From naama_gat at hotmail.com Wed Aug 7 17:48:35 2002 From: naama_gat at hotmail.com (naamagatus) Date: Wed, 07 Aug 2002 17:48:35 -0000 Subject: Voldemort on when someone dies to protect their family In-Reply-To: <003401c23a9b$cefe2820$147763d1@texas.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42266 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Amanda Geist" wrote: > Dembeldei (interesting moniker) observed: > > > In reading various posts on Harry's parents' deaths and > > Voldemort's graveyard comments on them, I wonder why Voldemort > > calls James 'courageous' for standing up to him while he calls > > Lily 'foolish' or 'silly' or crazy. What is Voldemort's > > problem-- is he sexist? Or is he so embarrassed that Lily got > > > the better of him? > > One reason may be that James had to die, and Lily didn't, > necessarily. Supported somewhat by Voldemort saying she didn't have > to die (which I personally think is untrue, I think he was just > > saying stuff he thought might make her move). Perhaps he considers > James courageous for standing up to inevitable certain death, and > Lily foolish for standing up to an unnecessary one. Of course. This exactly agrees with what Dumbledore says of him in PS: "If there is one thing Voldemort cannot understand, it is love". He didn't understand it then, and he doesn't understand it still. Although he knows, technically, that Lily saved Harry by self sacrifice, since he can't (won't?) feel love, he can't understand her motive. To say to Voldemort that Lily's motive was love, would be like saying to me that somebody died for selrwlejd. It's meaningless for him. And this is Voldemort, remember, the man whose overriding ambition is immortality. I'm sure nothing could seem stupider to him than to die for another person. Naama From suzchiles at pobox.com Wed Aug 7 18:27:44 2002 From: suzchiles at pobox.com (Suzanne Chiles) Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2002 11:27:44 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The night the Potters died & where are their graves In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42267 James (quite well, imho) said: > My theory, since I first read the books, was that the failed AK > created the > blast that wrecked the house. Assuming that the rebounding of the > curse was > the source of the blast, the epicenter of it would have been > Harry himself, > with the blast radiating outwards (from his forehead?). Also assuming > Harry's 'protection' was total at that moment, he would have been left > laying in a somewhat broken crib with a now-blasted house all around him. > The force would have thrown splinters, debris, bricks and > fragments of glass > AWAY from him. > After all, Harry Potter IS the boy who lived. It is quite understandable and literarily appropriate that the failed AK curse would destroy everything EXCEPT young Harry, the boy who lived. Zo From mdemeran at hotmail.com Wed Aug 7 18:33:06 2002 From: mdemeran at hotmail.com (Meg Demeranville) Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2002 13:33:06 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] The Fateful Night / why we know so little References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42268 After careful consideration of Grey Wolf's post while plastering my bathroom, I have the following questions: However, Voldemort forgets the ancient love-shield spell based on a sacrifice for love that Lily had been studying, and when he tries to AK Harry, the AK rebounds on the love shield and hits him squarely. When the AK spell which, in my opinion, disassociates the soul from the body, hits the almost soul-less Voldemort, after having been rebounded in a love shield, all hell breaks loose. His body detonates with extreme force, blowing off the room's ceiling and dropping bits and pieces of house all over Godric's Hollow. So far, in fact, that almost none of it falls on Harry (and what little it does fall on him is easily stopped by the love shield and the innate magic protection all wizards have). Where does it say that Voldermort has no soul? Hagrid says "Some say he died. Codswallop, in my opinion. Dunno if he had enough human left in him to die." (p. 57 SS US Hardback). I would think that his soul is all that he has left. That would be why he needed to get a new body in GoF. His vapor form that fled to Albania was his soul, which was probably black as midnight in my humble opinion. My next question: Dumbledore feels James's and Lily's death, and inmediately sends Hagrid with orders to get Harry and take him some place safe, and to meet with him at midnight of the next day at Privet's drive. Hagrid takes floo powder to a near place and arrives there minutes before Sirius, but with time enough to find Harry, more or less intact, except for the scar. Sirius arrives later, since he used the motobike, slower than Floo powder and asks for Harry. Hagrid will not give it to him, but accepts the bike. With no child to protect, Sirius goes looking for Peter. He knows him well, so he's able to find him in less than a day, by looking in the usual hiding places a rat like Peter would choose. Is it possible to assume that Dumbledore has the same kinds of protections on the house at Godric's Hollow that he will later set up (I think) to watch Harry on Privet Drive? He may not be able to see what is going on at Godric's Hollow but is able to detect if Dark Magic takes place. It is known that Voldermort was after the Potters, they were scared enough to go into hiding, therefore, I think that it is reasonable to assume that there was some kinds of monitoring devices set up either in the village or the house for Dumbledore to know what was going on in the house. He may not have been able to do anything about it, but would be able to send Hagrid for Harry. Or else, how did he know at all that Harry was alive. I think a lot of what we don't know has come because Harry has not asked questions. In the opening chapters of PS/SS, there are multiple references to the Dursley's "Don't ask questions" rule. In chapter 2 of PS/SS it is mentioned 3 separate times. And the chapter is only 11 pages long. I think that concept made Harry not asked the questions we want answers to (great plot device) but I think that he is learning to ask questions as the books go on. Wow, this is my longest post yet. Ok, back to plastering. -- Meg (who is stuck in the splint until school starts) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From mandrin_orange88 at hotmail.com Wed Aug 7 17:43:14 2002 From: mandrin_orange88 at hotmail.com (llamas_my_luv81) Date: Wed, 07 Aug 2002 17:43:14 -0000 Subject: Secret Keeper Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42269 Hi, I'm new here, so I'm not sure if this has been discussed before, so I'm very sorry if it has. My mom just got done reading Harry Potter, and she asked me to clarify how the secret keeper charm works. So, while I was explaining this, something occurred to me...what happens if the secret keeper dies? Would the charm be broken, and the person who was hiding be exposed? Or would the person who was being hidden from never be able to find the person who was hiding? And, is there any spell that can take the charm off, once it's been cast? Thanks, Helen From crussell at arkansas.net Wed Aug 7 18:55:30 2002 From: crussell at arkansas.net (bugaloo37) Date: Wed, 07 Aug 2002 18:55:30 -0000 Subject: The AK curse and related/unrelated oddments Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42270 In HPforgrownups, "Jodel" wrote << ...This is the data on which his (Dumbledore) theory of the "magical transfusion" was based, which he told to Harry after the parselmouth incident. It may well be the basis of Dumbledore's look of triumph when Harry reported that his blood was used to facilitate Voldemort's return... I suspect that he also got something he didn't bargain on...he has somehow opened up a point of vulnerability that he does not recognize...I seriously wonder whether Harry Potter even COULD be killed without repurcusion to Voldemort, now>> IMO, this is a powerful theory and well-based in canon. Dumbledore has been nothing but supportive and protective of Harry from the start. However, if Dumbledore merely saw Harry as means to an end- the complete destruction of Voldemort- then that protection and support would have no heart behind it-only calculations. I simply refuse to believe that Dumbledore is anything but what he appears-and any information he is keeping from Harry at the present is for his own good. My final point is this: IMHO, Dumbledore's triumphant look is based on some knowledge that only he possesses-but I state emphatically- that there would be no look of triumph from him- if that knowledge contained the certainty or even the possibility of Harry's complete destruction being necessary to finally and completely destroy Voldemort. IF Harry's death is necessary-(which I do not consider possible) then Dumbledore ALREADY has a plan to bring him back (why else is the phoenix so predominate in the story?). If not-where is the "triumph?" bugaloo37-still pulling for a "happy ending" From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Wed Aug 7 19:50:34 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Wed, 07 Aug 2002 19:50:34 -0000 Subject: The Fateful Night In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42271 Meg Demeranville wrote: > After careful consideration of Grey Wolf's post while plastering my bathroom, I have the following questions: > >> However, Voldemort >> forgets the ancient love-shield spell based on a sacrifice for love >> that Lily had been studying, and when he tries to AK Harry, the AK >> rebounds on the love shield and hits him squarely. When the AK spell >> which, in my opinion, disassociates the soul from the body, hits the >> almost soul-less Voldemort, after having been rebounded in a love >> shield, all hell breaks loose. His body detonates with extreme >> force, blowing off the room's ceiling and dropping bits and pieces >> of house all over Godric's Hollow. So far, in fact, that almost none >> of it falls on Harry (and what little it does fall on him is easily >> stopped by the love shield and the innate magic protection all >> wizards have). > > Where does it say that Voldermort has no soul? Hagrid says "Some say > he died. Codswallop, in my opinion. Dunno if he had enough human left > in him to die." (p. 57 SS US Hardback). I would think that his soul > is all that he has left. That would be why he needed to get a new > body in GoF. His vapor form that fled to Albania was his soul, which > was probably black as midnight in my humble opinion. > > -- Meg (who is stuck in the splint until school starts) Where does it say that Voldermort has no soul? Right there in that quote you gracefully included (thanks for not making me translate it!), but it's just a matter of interpretation. I've always understood that "Dunno if he had enough human left in him to die" meant that he had become so totally evil that his soul had been tarnished to the point he could not be considered a human being anymore. Back in the days I was a newbie in the list I already proposed my AK theory. Check post #32751 for the full theory (things have changed since then, though. I don't believe now that the body of Voldemort was found, but it's a minor detail). There are, anyway, other posibilities. One is that one of his multiple experiments worked correctly, of sorts, and prevented his soul from being utterly destroyed when hit by the AK. Another is that a rebounded AK does not work correctly. Yet another is that one of his experiments worked perfectly: when faced with death, it separates consciousness from body, giving it a vapour form. Or any suitable conbination, as always. Finally, a bit of explanation of my own theory: the soul-less Voldemort. In this theory, I supose that V has, through a series of evil acts and magical experiments, destroyed his own soul until only a strange, vapour-like one remains. Thus, when it get's separated from his body his soul doesn't take the form the body used to have, like in the case of ghosts, but the famous vapour form. Hope that helps, Grey Wolf From psychchick04 at yahoo.com Wed Aug 7 20:45:39 2002 From: psychchick04 at yahoo.com (Jacqueline Hendries) Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2002 13:45:39 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Fidelius charm? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020807204539.12944.qmail@web9203.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 42272 Ellie writes: >> Now, my question is this: is the Fidelius charm *completely* broken the moment the Secret keeper divulges his secret? In other words, having given the information to one person, is it then freely available to *everyone*. If so, then Pettigrew having divulged the secret, Snape may well have been able to find his way to Godric's Hollow in advance (the details of their whereabouts were immediately known by Hagrid, presumably via Dumbledore, thus implying that they did know in advance where the Potters were and that the Fidelius Charm gave some kind of enhanced amnesia, or an inability to find them/discuss their presence in the place where they knew they were). But this poses a problem. As soon as Pettigrew told Voldemort the secret, the Potters' whereabouts would no longer be secret, Dumbledore would have (or certainly could have) realised that the secret had been divulged, the Potters might have been surprised by visitors, there are all sorts of possibilities. It would be too risky to do it in advance. So if the Fidelius Charm *is* made completely void by the Secret Keeper's divulgence, then the only sensible course would have been for Pettigrew to take Voldemort to Godric's Hollow, before telling the secret to Voldemort and allowing him to find them. Snape could only be present if Voldemort chose to take him along and he could only have been the one to warn Lily if Voldemort sent him into the house first. OTOH, perhaps the secret does not become generally available on its divulgence. In this case, Voldemort and those whom he told would be the only ones to know and again, Snape could only be there by invitation as he wouldn't be able to find the Potters. In this scenario, the charm is broken only by the Potters' deaths. Except.....Harry was still alive, so the charm still should have still worked, shouldn't it? I think the first version of the charm is correct. Otherwise, how did Dumbledore know that something had happened, how did he know to despatch Hagrid (and incidentaly, where did he go, since it was apparently not Godric's Hollow and he was evidently not at Hogwarts? Summoned to the MOM, I presume.) <<<< My response: From the way they described it in the book, I had always believed that the Fidelius Charm only prevented a certain person or group of people from seeing the Potters. This was why Sirius, Dumbledore, Hagrid etc. knew where they were and Voldemort, DEs etc. did not. The only problem I can see with that scenario is that they didn't necessarily know who to trust at that time (well, obviously, huh?), but it is possible that they could cast the spell in such a way that hid them from all "untrustworthy parties" or would only show them to a specific few people that had to be mentioned in the spell. I never thought that it would keep them hidden from *everyone*, however, and I'm not sure what if anything in the book points to that. Anyway, I'm pretty sure the Fidelius only hides you from certain people. Perhaps part of its power is that even if someone *not* specifically protected against found out and told Voldemort where they were, Voldemort wouldn't be able to see them anyway. I think that for the Charm to be broken, the Secret Keeper specifically has to divulge the information to the person(s) that the charm is to protect against. So, the only way Voldie could have found them was for Wormtail to have told him (which, obviously happened)... even if Sirius or Dumbledore himself told him where they were hiding, he wouldn't have been able to see them/kill them. Just my theory, though... ~ Aloha ===== jackie04 at brandeis.edu __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better http://health.yahoo.com From rvotaw at i-55.com Wed Aug 7 21:27:35 2002 From: rvotaw at i-55.com (Richelle Votaw) Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2002 16:27:35 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Pettigrew & hiding + Trelawney & prophecy References: Message-ID: <013001c23e59$408ba420$199ccdd1@istu757> No: HPFGUIDX 42273 Inge writes: > I can understand why Pettigrew had to be in hiding since he was > supposedly the dead hero. But I could never understand why he was > hiding at the Weasley's of all people. I mean - why not at some of > the loyal DE's? Why would the DE's have reason to see Pettigrew as > their enemy? After all, he did help Voldemort to get to James and > Lily and I see no reason why the DE's should not still trust and > protect him? Well, maybe he wanted a safer place? In case anyone ever suspected anything from the DE's? I'm still not quite clear on exactly HOW Percy got Scabbers in the first place. Did a rat just show up on the door step with a sign, "I'd like to be your pet."??? And if he wanted a way into Hogwarts (it's a safe place after all, might be nice to hide in), the Weasleys were pretty much guaranteed to get in. Old wizarding family and all, no danger of them being thrown into Azkaban. Richelle From rvotaw at i-55.com Wed Aug 7 21:36:18 2002 From: rvotaw at i-55.com (Richelle Votaw) Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2002 16:36:18 -0500 Subject: The Potters last night (with added TBAY) Message-ID: <014b01c23e5a$783f7a80$199ccdd1@istu757> No: HPFGUIDX 42274 Well, I've been thinking about it all day, and I think I'm ready to summarize my latest ideas on the Potters' last night. So here we go: Peter has given the secret to Voldemort, and Voldemort heads out to Godric's Hollow with a few of his Death Eaters along just for good measure. Besides, there's safety in numbers. Snape is among those with him. Snape was informed of the plan and had given the information to Dumbledore. Dumbledore tells Snape to keep up the secret agent business. Voldemort enters the Potter house. James sees him first, tells Lily to take Harry and run. Turns to fight Voldemort. Snape stands by and watches James die. In reality he is unable to do anything to stop it, or else they'd have both been dead. Still, he must live with the memory of James dying. James that he hated. James that saved his life. Voldemort moves on after Lily. We know the story there, stand aside, etc. AK's Lily. Turns to baby Harry. Tries to AK Harry, it bounces off, basically incinerates Voldemort and shakes the very foundations of the house. Voldemort is left as almost nothing, his vapor form flees. Death Eaters scatter as the house begins to collapse. Snape starts to run, stops, turns around and picks up Harry. Runs to safety out of the house, still holding the screaming baby. The house collapses. Snape looks down at the baby, looks around, walks back to the house and sets him down there. He knows he'll be found soon. And Snape's not about to get caught carrying the Potter baby around. Snape leaves, time passes, Hagrid and Sirius arrive, and we know the rest. Thoughts on my now semi-organized thoughts that now include no Lupin? Richelle ------------------------------------ Richelle R. Votaw 1st grade teacher Kentwood Elementary ------------------------------------ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bdmorrp at budget.state.ny.us Wed Aug 7 21:30:47 2002 From: bdmorrp at budget.state.ny.us (erisedstraeh2002) Date: Wed, 07 Aug 2002 21:30:47 -0000 Subject: The Fateful Night (VERY long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42275 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "grey_wolf_c" wrote: > The Potters, for reasons unknown, decided to go into hiding. I think we do know the reason why the Potters went into hiding - at the end of PoA, I believe it's Lupin who says (liberal translation - I don't have my book with me) "Not many people knew that Voldemort was after the Potters, but Dumbledore had a number of useful spies who tipped them off." What we don't know is *why* Voldemort was after them (although I'm a proponent of the Voldemort-wanted-to-kill- the-last-heirs-of-Gryffindor theory). We also don't know who the "useful spies" were, but can we safely guess Snape could have been one of them? > and Voldemort gets on the way, with an indeterminate number of his > forces with him. If we treat the scene in the movie that JKR personally added as canon, it shows Voldemort entering the house solo. > Wizards from the MoM arrive to the scene, and find one to three bodies At the end of PoA, Sirius says that he went to the destroyed house and found the Potters' *bodies*. This suggests that both Lily and James' bodies were there, although it ruins my "protection is in the Gryffindor bloodline at Godric's Hollow" theory I discussed in an earlier post today (that I'm still waiting for someone to respond to on-list, *hint*). Cheers, Phyllis From rvotaw at i-55.com Wed Aug 7 23:02:17 2002 From: rvotaw at i-55.com (Richelle Votaw) Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2002 18:02:17 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Fateful Night (VERY long) References: Message-ID: <000e01c23e66$7aa7d180$c99ccdd1@istu757> No: HPFGUIDX 42276 Grey wolf writes: > > > and Voldemort gets on the way, with an indeterminate number of his > > forces with him. Phyllis responds: > If we treat the scene in the movie that JKR personally added as > canon, it shows Voldemort entering the house solo. I'm not sure I follow. How was this scene added by JKR? It's in the book already. It was just moved in the movie. And the way I see it, it's Hagrid's retelling that we're seeing. He's describing what he thinks happened. From SS/PS Ch. 4 page 55: "All anyone knows is, he turned up in the village where you was all living, on Halloween ten years ago. You was just a year old. He came ter yer house an'--an'--" (stops and blows nose) "Sorry, but it's that sad--knew yer mum an' dad, an' nicer people yeh couldn't find--anyway. . . You-Know-Who killed 'em. An'then--an' this is the real myst'ry of the thing--he tried to kill you, too. Wanted ter make a clean job of it, I suppose, or maybe he just liked killin' by then. But he couldn't do it." That's pretty much what Hagrid says in the movie, and pretty much what we see. We see Voldemort walking up to the door, entering, Lily slamming door (pretty much could be imagined) flash of green light (comes from AK), Lily is AK'd, Voldemort approaches Harry. That's how I'd have put it together. It would be logical that the man would be killed first, trying to defend, followed by the woman. Last, the baby. I still think it's possible others were there. Probably not actually doing anything, just on the sidelines to observe (death eaters, for example). Richelle Grey Wolf: > > Wizards from the MoM arrive to the scene, and find one to three > bodies Sorry, I must've missed this. Who would the third have been? It is possible to have been three, I suppose, but not just one. Sirius says " . . . when I saw their house, destroyed, and their bodies . . . I realized what Peter must've done . . . what I'd done . . ." Richelle From coriolan_cmc at hotmail.com Thu Aug 8 01:23:08 2002 From: coriolan_cmc at hotmail.com (coriolan_cmc2001) Date: Thu, 08 Aug 2002 01:23:08 -0000 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Tonight_We=92ll_Drive_Ol=92_Potter_Down_(filk)?= Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42277 Tonight We'll Drive Ol' Potter Down (PoA, Chap. 13) (To the tune of The Night They Drove Old Dixie Down) Dedicated to Mariner THE SCENE: Slytherin Common Room. Enter MALFOY, FLINT, CRABBE & GOYLE MALFOY Draco Malfoy's the name, and harrying Harry's my aim The `mentors make him go limp, they tear up that Potter wimp In Quidditch much to his lament, at their mere sight made a great descent `Twas fifty feet, Potter so fell How we laughed, let us conspire oh, so well... MALFOY, FLINT, CRABBE & GOYLE Tonight we'll drive ol' Potter down We'll be robed in black garments Tonight we'll don dementor gowns And we'll make mock of that varmint. We'll sing . M-ba-ha-ha-ha M-ba-ha-ha-ha ba-ha-ha-ha (Segue to the History of Magic classroom, as HARRY practices the Patronus Charm) HARRY Back in my class with Remus, see, when one day he said to me LUPIN Harry, try with me, to cast the Expecto P. Now, if your wand's wavin' right, then you'll conjure up a Patron so bright. In a time of need it is the best Those who can conjure the Patron are truly blessed BOTH A knight who'll drive dementors back A stout shield it's bringin' A Patron cuts `mentors no slack Just keep those happy thoughts ringin'. We'll sing: La, la-la-la-la-la, La-la-la-la, la-la-la-la-la. (Segue to the Quidditch field, immediately after Gryffindor's triumph over Ravenclaw) HARRY The next matchup before us was with Ravenclaw And, with dementors before me, the Snitch flew to my paw I just said EP, then a blast as my Patron knocked `mentors out fast They cringed in the mud below our toes They were worse than `mentor scum, they're pals of Draco's. HARRY, RON, HAGRID, LUPIN, McGONAGALL & GQT Tonight we laughed ol' Malfoy down And at a point loss we're hintin' Tonight Sir Draco plays our clown Ev'ry Slytherin's flintin'. We'll sing: Nyaa, nyah-nyah-nyah-nyah-nyah, Nyah-nyah-nyah-nyah, nyah-nyah-nyah-nyah-nyah. - CMC HARRY POTTER FILKS http://home.att.net/~coriolan/hpfilks.htm From hunibuni22 at webtv.net Wed Aug 7 23:57:13 2002 From: hunibuni22 at webtv.net (tjbailey24) Date: Wed, 07 Aug 2002 23:57:13 -0000 Subject: Ancient Magic/Gleam/Snape Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42278 I have a few small statements that I'd like to bring up and more than likely, it has already been discussed, mulled over and refined, but I feel the need to put these out there. :) First of all, I really enjoy the idea of Lily using ancient magic with the help of Dumbledore to protect Harry "just in case". And I feel it only makes sense that she had to sacrafice her own life in order for the spell to work. Especially since Ollivander pointed out in SS that her wand was excellent for *charms*. Seems like JKR was giving a little hint right there, IMO. Secondly, the "it wuz Snape" theory is also quite interesting and it certainly does bring in the point of Lupin looking surprised when Harry said he heard his fathers voice. However, wouldn't he be able to recognize Snape's voice? I also think that the reason that everyone knew where to go after Voldemort attacked the Potters is that the charm must have been broken when Peter told Voldemort where they were hiding. He was the *secret-keeper* and he told, so therefore its no longer a secret to anyone. Perhaps he told Voldemort in front of some D.E.? That could be how Snape found out. THen he, being spy, would go to the aid of the Potters. Thusly, that being why Dumbledore said in GoF (Harry was viewing the penseive, Dumbledore at Karkoroff's trial, I believe), "...Snape has already proved himself", and thats why he was not *punished* for being a death eater. However, I do realize that it is also mentioned that Snape went over on the good side before the fall of the Potters (yet I believe, the saving them, was the *proof*). Finally (for now), I have seen many posts talking about the *triumph* in Dumbledore's eye and to me, it seems that he pulled one over on Voldemort. Harry is told only the basics, perhaps that is because he's young, or maybe it is also a form of protection. The first time Harry came face to face with Voldemort, he told Voldemort about his mother sacrificing her life for him. Thats all Voldemort has to go on, the knowlege of an 11 year old. I'm sure that that is the basic idea of why Voldemort can't touch him, however I'm certain, theres much more to it that Dumbledore isn't letting on to. Well, thats it, I had to get these out of my system. My apologies if they were out of line, or already hashed through a dozen times. If you'd like to reply (please do), you can post it or email me personally. Thanks, Tara From zeff8 at attbi.com Thu Aug 8 01:35:43 2002 From: zeff8 at attbi.com (zeff8) Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2002 21:35:43 -0400 Subject: the wand's Message-ID: <000901c23e7b$e94afb20$5405f50c@attbi.com> No: HPFGUIDX 42279 Remember the first book/movie where Mr. Olivander says the wand chooses the wizard? If so, how is it then that another wizard can use someone elses wand? Does that person have to be in proximity to the person whose wand it is? We have seen others use Harrys wand, harry use other peoples wands, and even others using wands belong to other folks.. So is it the wand or the wizard? "Zeff" From bdmorrp at budget.state.ny.us Thu Aug 8 01:40:56 2002 From: bdmorrp at budget.state.ny.us (erisedstraeh2002) Date: Thu, 08 Aug 2002 01:40:56 -0000 Subject: The Fateful Night (VERY long) In-Reply-To: <000e01c23e66$7aa7d180$c99ccdd1@istu757> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42280 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Richelle Votaw" wrote: > Grey wolf writes: > > > > > > and Voldemort gets on the way, with an indeterminate number of his > > > forces with him. > > Phyllis (me) responds: > > > If we treat the scene in the movie that JKR personally added as > > canon, it shows Voldemort entering the house solo. > Richelle asks: > > I'm not sure I follow. How was this scene added by JKR? now me again: If you consult the Harry Potter Lexicon, it says that what's considered canon includes "sections of the film/games/etc. which are known to be written by or okayed by Rowling (so far the flashback sequence in SS/f showing Lily's death is the only information that fits this criteria that we know of)." Cheers, Phyllis From rpquate at earthlink.net Thu Aug 8 02:13:46 2002 From: rpquate at earthlink.net (redandgoldlion) Date: Thu, 08 Aug 2002 02:13:46 -0000 Subject: Fawkes/Phoenixes/Dumbledore/ Gryffindor Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42281 Hello everyone. I've only been here a few days, but I wanted to put a theory of mine forth. I'm very sorry if it has been talked about to the point you feel like killing me for writing something about it *again*, but I couldn't find any other discussions on this topic (except 1, I think from Marc). Here it is. Okay, this theory is *very* unlikely, but I'm trying to support it as best I can because I think it's cool, and, for some reason, I believe it. I am going to assume, from the title of book 5, that it has something to do with phoenixes. I am also going to guess that is has to do with Fawkes; he *is* the only phoenix we know, so far at least. Now I know that there have been plenty of heir theories circulating, but most have been concerning Harry. Some people have proposed that Dumbledore is Gryffindor's heir. Even if this isn't true, wasn't Dumbledore in Gryffindor? (Sorry, but I don't have the books with me now, or I'd look it up.) Anyway, I think Dumbledore is an animagus. I don't think he's just any old animagus either; I think he is Fawkes. At this point I probably have you convinced I'm insane. "Fawkes?" you're thinking. "He can't* be Fawkes; they were in the same room at the same time!" I can't blame you; after all, I haven't given any facts to support my theory. Here are some points, even if you don't think they support my theory, they still make one wonder...: 1. Dumbledore used to be transfiguration teacher, like McGonagall. Wouldn't it make sense for the transfiguration teacher to be able to, well, transfigure himself? I mean, he's the "greatest wizard of the age," so he's obviously capable of being an animagus (esp. if people like Rita Skeeter and those three marauders could). 2. Now, I am guessing that there is something special about phoenixes. What could "the order of phoenix" be. So far the three people we can associate with a phoenix are Harry, Voldemort, and Dumbledore. Pretty important characters, don't you think? Could it have something to do with the innate power of these characters? 3. If Dumbledore is indeed Fawkes, then that would mean Harry and Voldemort have Dumbledore's tail feathers in their wands!(I just thought this was funny, and that I should point it out) 4. Fawkes is red and gold, Gryffindor colors. Now even if neither Harry nor Dumbledore turn out to not to be related to Gryffindor, the red and gold sparks from Harry's wand would then surely tie in with Fawkes? If they, or at least Dumbledore, is related to Gryffindor, then I feel he *should* be something that represents Gryffindor, if he *is* an animagus. (a lion or a phoenix) 5. Also, in the CoS, Dumbledore said he would only *truly* have left the school when none were faithful to him. I know that phoenixes make faithful pets and all, but don't you think it weird that Fawkes was able to find Harry while he is in the Chamber? 6. So far I have left the part out, about how both Dumbledore and Fawkes could be in the same room at one time. What if Dumbledore was using a time-turner? Then one Dumbledore could be taken away, and the other could remain to watch over Hogwarts. 7. In the GoF, when Harry heard that voice that said, "don't break the connection" it was with the phoenix song, *before* Voldemort's victims started giving him advice. Could some type of shadow-echo- thing (how else *could* I put it?) of Dumbledore been communicating with him throuth the shadow-echo-thing of the phoenix, presumably Fawkes, in the graveyard? 8. Phoenixes can also do there own type of apparation/disapparation. I don't think the "you can't apparate *or* disapparate at Hogwarts" rule applies to other magical creatures. Look at Dobby in the hospital wing that night with Harry. This could help to explain how Dumbledore always gets to where he's going so quickly. In the SS when he gets that "urgent owl" from the ministry and soon realizes that he needs to be at Hogwarts, he manages not only to get quickly back to Hogwarts, but also to quickly get past all the things protecting the stone. There are numerous other times, too, when he could have done some "apparating," -I know one most, if not all of the points that I listed, there is a *ton* of evidence that goes against this theory, but then, look at all the evidence against Sirius. ;-) -Cliff1515 helped me with this theory, so, if you like it or hate it, it wasn't all me. I am really sorry if this message has a ton of mistakes, but I am suffering from severe sleep deprivation right now. I know as soon is this is posted I'll see all my mistakes and the replies that people are so kindly pointing each mistake out in. Please respond because I really want to hear everyone's thoughts on this theory. Sorry this post was so long. ~redandgoldlion~ From rvotaw at i-55.com Thu Aug 8 03:57:59 2002 From: rvotaw at i-55.com (Richelle Votaw) Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2002 22:57:59 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Fateful Night (VERY long) References: Message-ID: <004001c23e8f$cb985a00$5ea3cdd1@istu757> No: HPFGUIDX 42282 > > Richelle asks: > > > > I'm not sure I follow. How was this scene added by JKR? > Then Phyllis answers: > > If you consult the Harry Potter Lexicon, it says that what's > considered canon includes "sections of the film/games/etc. which are > known to be written by or okayed by Rowling (so far the flashback > sequence in SS/f showing Lily's death is the only information that > fits this criteria that we know of)." Hmm, okay, so is the death scene of Lily known as approved by JKR? If it was, we've got a bit of a mix up here. The film shows Lily screaming, for an extended moment. AK as shown by Moody/Crouch and later when Cedric dies just kills. Boom. The end. No time for screams. Is it possible that Lily was learning to resist it? As Harry instinctively resisted the Imperious curse? Of course, Harry wasn't completely successful with that and with AK you don't get a second chance. Just a thought, I know it couldn't be blocked etc., but if that scene was approved there's something more than meets the eye there. Richelle From rvotaw at i-55.com Thu Aug 8 04:05:41 2002 From: rvotaw at i-55.com (Richelle Votaw) Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2002 23:05:41 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Fawkes/Phoenixes/Dumbledore/ Gryffindor References: Message-ID: <004301c23e90$dcfd5d80$5ea3cdd1@istu757> No: HPFGUIDX 42283 redandgoldlion writes: > Anyway, I think Dumbledore is an animagus. I don't think he's > just any old animagus either; I think he is Fawkes. At this point I > probably have you convinced I'm insane. "Fawkes?" you're thinking. "He > can't* be Fawkes; they were in the same room at the same time!" > I can't blame you; after all, I haven't given any facts to support > my theory. Well, other than the fact that they are in the room at the same time I'd say yes. Dumbledore almost HAS to be an animagus. What descent transfiguration teacher wouldn't be? But could it be that he also has a real pet phoenix? I suppose the time turner thing could be possible, though I don't really know if Dumbledore has one. He sure doesn't use it much if he does. Unless of course he's using it all the time and we don't know. That's where I get confused with time travel. Anyway, I don't see why he couldn't have both a pet phoenix and transform into a phoenix. Harry's only met one phoenix, Fawkes, and it would be logical for him to assume it's the same one if they look identical. It would present an interesting connection if Dumbledore as a phoenix apparated to the graveyard, allowed everything to happen as it did because of the need to have Voldemort alive so he can be killed, and help strengthen Harry by the song of the phoenix. It does get rather complex, doesn't it? Good theory, though, lots of twists in there. Richelle From rvotaw at i-55.com Thu Aug 8 04:10:20 2002 From: rvotaw at i-55.com (Richelle Votaw) Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2002 23:10:20 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] the wand's References: <000901c23e7b$e94afb20$5405f50c@attbi.com> Message-ID: <007601c23e91$840511e0$5ea3cdd1@istu757> No: HPFGUIDX 42284 Zeff writes: > Remember the first book/movie where Mr. Olivander says the wand chooses the > wizard? If so, how is it then that another wizard can use someone elses > wand? Does that person have to be in proximity to the person whose wand it > is? > > We have seen others use Harrys wand, harry use other peoples wands, and even > others using wands belong to other folks.. So is it the wand or the wizard? Hmm. We do know that to do directed, focused magic you must have *a* wand. Not necessarily your own wand, any wand will do it seems. I would think that to do a complex spell it would help to have your own wand. However, if I'm reading it right, Wormtail performs AK using Voldemort's wand. Is that right? Or was it Wormtail saying "Kill the spare." That sounds rather like an order Voldemort would give though. Help! Now I'm confusing myself even, this is no help. :) Richelle From lee.farley at ntlworld.com Thu Aug 8 04:37:22 2002 From: lee.farley at ntlworld.com (LD) Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2002 05:37:22 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Fateful Night (VERY long) In-Reply-To: <004001c23e8f$cb985a00$5ea3cdd1@istu757> Message-ID: <000001c23e95$4a638300$10ec6bd5@mayhem> No: HPFGUIDX 42285 Richelle wrote: > Hmm, okay, so is the death scene of Lily known as approved by JKR? If > it was, we've got a bit of a mix up here. The film shows Lily > screaming, for an extended moment. AK as shown by Moody/Crouch and > later when Cedric dies just kills. Boom. The end. No time for > screams. Is it possible that Lily was learning to resist it? As Harry > instinctively resisted the Imperious curse? Of course, Harry wasn't > completely successful with that and with AK you don't get a second > chance. Just a thought, I know it couldn't be blocked etc., but if that > scene was approved there's something more than meets the eye there. I think that maybe Lily was screaming because she knew what was going to happen. She saw Voldemort raise his wand, heard him start the curse, realised that in a few seconds she'd be nothing more than another mark on Voldemort's score sheet and just let her lungs do their thing. Although I do like the idea that Avada Kedavra can be resisted the same as Imperius can... Maybe AK is just a very strong form of Imperius that simply commands the victim to "stop living", and the look of terror that results is due to the realisation that there's nothing you can do to resist it? Actually no, that sounds way too far fetched to be true :D -LD From digitopolis_2000 at yahoo.com Thu Aug 8 02:24:04 2002 From: digitopolis_2000 at yahoo.com (digitopolis_2000) Date: Thu, 08 Aug 2002 02:24:04 -0000 Subject: Fate and Choices Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42286 The wand chooses the wizard... We know that Harry's wand core comes from Fawkes, and so does Voldemort's. In CS it's mentioned by Riddle that there are strange similarities between Harry and himself. However, because of their choices they've become very different people. But the wand 'chose' them perhaps before all these decisions were made. Why would Harry and Voldemort both have wand cores from the same phoenix - especially considering the association between phoenixes (sp?) and loyalty? How much of this is pre-destined and how much of it is due to their choices? JKR wants to tell us that it's our choices that show who we truly are etc. but I keep getting this recurring feeling whenever I read the books that many things are as a result of fate. val From purple_801999 at yahoo.com Thu Aug 8 03:40:59 2002 From: purple_801999 at yahoo.com (purple_801999) Date: Thu, 08 Aug 2002 03:40:59 -0000 Subject: Weasley family ages In-Reply-To: <008301c23dd4$109422e0$68f0f718@kzo.chartermi.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42287 FF wrote- >Ron (or Rone) is given as the name of Arthur's spear in the 12th >century Brut, by Lawman. I'm not sure if Geoffrey of Monmouth or any >of the other Arthurian writers mention that point or not -- Lawman's >the first that springs to mind. Possibly Ron was named after Ronald Regan. If we follow the Lexicon timeline Ron would have been born about the time Regan began his dark reign. I don't think it's likely myself, but I thought I'd throw it out there anyway. >On Ginny, though, 'Ginny' is typically a dimunitive of Virginia, >which might possibly be a reference to Elizabeth I. But Guinevere's >an interesting idea :-) Ginny was listed as Virginia Weasly at the Internet Film Database, but it still fits in with you theory. -Olivia From heidit at netbox.com Thu Aug 8 07:34:08 2002 From: heidit at netbox.com (heidit at netbox.com) Date: Thu, 08 Aug 2002 07:34:08 -0000 Subject: Ron's name, owls from Hogwarts and birthdays Message-ID: <20020808073408.15400.qmail@uadvg137.cms.usa.net> No: HPFGUIDX 42288 "purple_801999" wrote: > Real-To: "purple_801999" > > FF wrote- > > >Ron (or Rone) is given as the name of Arthur's spear in the 12th > >century Brut, by Lawman. I'm not sure if Geoffrey of Monmouth or any > >of the other Arthurian writers mention that point or not -- Lawman's > >the first that springs to mind. > > Possibly Ron was named after Ronald Regan. If we follow the Lexicon > timeline Ron would have been born about the time Regan began his dark > reign. I don't think it's likely myself, but I thought I'd throw it > out there anyway. > Apart from the fact that Ron is British and Reagan a Muggle, making this somewhat unlikely, on March 1, 1980, when Ron was born, Reagan was in the middle of losing many primaries to George Bush - a few weeks later, things were different, but not March 1. I, however, am curious as to whether JKR determined just how many moments after February 29, 1980 Ron was born - and I wonder if that has any significance. And if the Magic Quill is tagged to send owls to people in the year that they're 11 years old, that's one thing - but what if it's tagged to do it in the year of their 11th birthday? Any 44 year olds who haven't had owls yet but who might be magical anyway? : glances in general direction of Petunia heidi ____________________________________________________________________ This message was sent from my Palm wireless email account. From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Thu Aug 8 07:54:51 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Thu, 08 Aug 2002 07:54:51 -0000 Subject: The Fateful Night (VERY long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42289 Phyllis wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "grey_wolf_c" wrote: > > > The Potters, for reasons unknown, decided to go into hiding. > > I think we do know the reason why the Potters went into hiding - at > the end of PoA, I believe it's Lupin who says (liberal translation - > I don't have my book with me) "Not many people knew that Voldemort > was after the Potters, but Dumbledore had a number of useful spies > who tipped them off." What we don't know is *why* Voldemort was > after them (although I'm a proponent of the Voldemort-wanted-to-kill- > the-last-heirs-of-Gryffindor theory). We also don't know who > the "useful spies" were, but can we safely guess Snape could have > been one of them? So, the reason is still unknown: they were hiding from Voldemort is not good enough reason. *Everyone* was hiding from Voldemort at that time. Why do a Fidelius charm, then? Why put your security in the hands of a single man? Obviously, we don't have any canon to solve this, so I just put in the "unknown". My own personal favourite is that they were doing experiments, Lily with ancient magic and James with Harry, to find ways of defeating Voldemort, but that is *my theory*, and cannot be included in a "facts" section. > > > and Voldemort gets on the way, with an indeterminate number of his > > forces with him. > > If we treat the scene in the movie that JKR personally added as > canon, it shows Voldemort entering the house solo. I never treat ANYTHING of the film canon, no matter what the Lexicon says in the matter. JKR's film text has passed through too many people to resist, and for the sort of nit-picking that happens around here, it's got to be totally pure. At any rate, you can still imagine that the DE were looming behind him, if you want. Ready to give a hand but not close enough to be underfoot. Phyllis and Richelle both: > > Grey Wolf: > > > Wizards from the MoM arrive to the scene, and find one to three > > bodies I think neither of you have understanded why I did that division of "the Fateful Night (VERY long)" post. In the first section "Ths Facts", as the very name says, I was just including what canon tells us about what was happening there. Most of them comes from Sirius's story in the shack, and then a few bits and pieces from Fudge, Hagrid and so on. If we allow they're testimonies to be true -and I've got no reason to mistrust them in those particular confesions- they paint an incomplete picture of what happened that night. You can discuss the slack, or even use it as a frame for creating your own personal theory, but -I think- what I wrote in section 1 is not open to discussion. It might contain wrong facts (i.e. Could there have been a fourth body?), but there aren't leaps of faith or interpretation of any kind. That said, p> At the end of PoA, Sirius says that he went to the destroyed house p> and found the Potters' *bodies*. This suggests that both Lily and p> James' bodies were there, although it ruins my "protection is in the p> Gryffindor bloodline at Godric's Hollow" theory I discussed in an p> earlier post today (that I'm still waiting for someone to respond to p> on-list, *hint*). p> p> Cheers, p> Phyllis > r> Sorry, I must've missed this. Who would the third have been? It is r> possible to have been three, I suppose, but not just one. Sirius r> says " ... when I saw their house, destroyed, and their bodies . . . r> I realized what Peter must've done . . . what I'd done . . ." r> r> Richelle Three people "died" that night: James, Lily and Voldemort, all of them thorugh AK. AK leaves a body behind, so logic tells us that there should have been three bodies. I said "one to three" because the explosion *could* have vaporised Lily's and Voldemort's bodies, so only James's remained. I'm partial to the "two-bodies" theory, and my theories fit with the "three-bodies" theory, but that wasn't the place or moment to speak about it. In good logic, there could be from one to three, and that's what I said. If you want, scratch the "one to three" and put there "two or three", since Sirius wording seems to indicate a plurality of bodies in the scene. I wasn't going that far, and "one to three" is a safe answer that in almost all probability contains the correct answer -as far as we know right now. Hope that helps, Grey Wolf From judyshapiro at earthlink.net Thu Aug 8 08:35:42 2002 From: judyshapiro at earthlink.net (judyserenity) Date: Thu, 08 Aug 2002 08:35:42 -0000 Subject: Fawkes/Phoenixes/Dumbledore/ Gryffindor In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42290 Redandgoldlion wrote: >... I think Dumbledore > is an animagus. I don't think he's > just any old animagus either; I think > he is Fawkes. Oooo, very creative theory! I don't think that's been suggested here before. I like this theory, but I don't think it can be true. I agree that having Fawkes and Dumbledore in the same room at once is no problem, due to the existence of time turners. But, I see two other problems. First, in CoS, Dumbledore says he's been telling Fawkes to get moving and burn already. It wouldn't make sense for Dumbledore to say this to himself, and I don't think he'd lie to Harry about it. Second, Fawkes has extremely powerful magic that humans appear to lack in the Potterverse, including the ability to resurrect. If Dumbledore were Fawkes, that would imply that tranfiguration gives one the magical powers of the animal one becomes. We haven't seen anything like that before. This *could* be because the other animagi transform into non-magical creatures, but my guess is, animagi retain the magical properties of their original human selves, not of the animals that they become. Otherwise, I don't see how animagi could tranform back. I also have the theory that the reason Ron's spell failed when he tried to turn Scabbers yellow (in PS/SS) was that Scabbers wasn't a real rat; in terms of how magic affected him, he was still human. I'd sort of like this theory to be true, but I think it's more likely that Fawkes is a real pheonix who once belonged to Godric Gryffindor. This would explain the association of Fawkes' colors with the Gryffindor house colors. I'm trying to remember if the basilisk had any silver color -- I seem to recall he was green. Maybe both Gryffindor and Slytherin picked their house colors based on the colors of their magic "pets." There would also be a nice parallel if both Slytherin's and Gryffindor's animals were still alive at the time Harry started school, which would be the case if Fawkes once belonged to Gryffindor. Also, if Fawkes belonged to Gryffindor, that would mean that Gryffindor's animal helped defeat Slytherin's animal (the basilisk) which would be nice foreshadowing of an eventual victory by the Gryffindor side. -- Judy From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Thu Aug 8 08:47:03 2002 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (bboy_mn) Date: Thu, 08 Aug 2002 08:47:03 -0000 Subject: Ancient Magic/Gleam/Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42291 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "tjbailey24" wrote: > I have a few small statements that I'd like to bring up and more > than likely, it has already been discussed, mulled over and > refined, but I feel the need to put these out there. :) > Tara First Comment: > First of all, I really enjoy the idea of Lily using ancient magic with the help of Dumbledore to protect Harry "just in case". And I feel it only makes sense that she had to sacrafice her own life in order for the spell to work. Especially since Ollivander pointed out in SS that her wand was excellent for *charms*. Seems like JKR was giving a little hint right there, IMO. > BBOY_MN Responds: Why does it need to be anything more that the pure power of the pure essense of love? Isn't the power of a selfless act of love enough to give Harry the protection he needs? You have to admit that love is powerful force; people live for it, they die for it, they kill for it, kings and queens give up the throne for love, people are healed by love, spirits are renewed, tormented souls are made whole again. If you are of Christian belief, then the sins of the entire world for all time were redeemed by a single selfless act of love. You're more than welcome to your theory, but as far as I'm concerned, to be marked by such pure powerful selfless love if more than enough power to save Harry. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Tara 2nd Comment: PART 1: > Secondly, the "it wuz Snape" theory is also quite interesting and it certainly does bring in the point of Lupin looking surprised when Harry said he heard his fathers voice. BBOY_MN Responds: His 'look' isn't described as 'surprised'; it's a 'strange' look. To which Harry replies, 'Why - did you know my father?'. No indication that Lupin look was one of disbelief or shock. Harry obviously took it a look of recognition. James was Remus best friend, and Harry just said he heard James voice. I think that would bring a strange look to anyone's face. . . . . . . . . . . . Tara 2nd Comment: PART 2: However, wouldn't he be able to recognize Snape's voice? ***I also think that the reason that everyone knew where to go after Voldemort attacked the Potters is that the charm must have been broken**** when Peter told Voldemort where they were hiding. He was the *secret-keeper* and he told, so therefore its no longer a secret to anyone. Perhaps he told Voldemort in front of some D.E.? That could be how Snape found out. Then he, being spy, would go to the aid of the Potters. Thusly, that being why Dumbledore said in GoF (Harry was viewing the penseive, Dumbledore at Karkoroff's trial, I believe), "...Snape has already proved himself", and thats why he was not *punished* for being a death eater. However, I do realize that it is also mentioned that Snape went over on the good side before the fall of the Potters (yet I believe, the saving them, was the *proof*). BBOY_MN Responds: RE: How did people know or find out that the event had taken place? If one of the houses on your block blew up, do you think the neighbors would notice? This was the Potter's house; this seems to be a known fact, although not clearly estabished. What is not known is that the Potter's were living there at the time. So when the villagers heard the Potter's house blow up, and saw it demonished, I'm sure a flurry of owls went flying, not to mention a flurry of people apparating to tell someone. This would certainly be done regardless of whether people thought the Potter's were inside. Considering that this was a time of war, Death Eater activity would have been suspected, and things of this nature would have been reported immediately. Keep in mind (from my interpretation) the Fidelus charm didn't stop people from seeing the house; it stopped them from seeing the people inside the house (the Potter's). I think when the house of a well respected, well love family blows up in the middle of the night, whether they were in the house or not, the news travels fast. RE: Why does anyone else have to be there? OK, Snape is there; interesting concept, but I don't see any evidence that anyone other than the Potter's were there, and I don't see any need for anyone other than the Potter's to be there. True, we may not know the man's voice was James', but we don't really know that the woman or the woman's voice was Lily's, but it seems a logical conclusion. - - - - - - - - - - - - Tara's 3nd Comment: > Finally (for now), **** I have seen many posts talking about the *triumph* in Dumbledore's eye and to me, it seems that he pulled one over on Voldemort.**** Harry is told only the basics, perhaps that is because he's young, or maybe it is also a form of protection. ****The first time Harry came face to face with Voldemort, he told Voldemort about his mother sacrificing her life for him.**** Thats all Voldemort has to go on, the knowlege of an 11 year old. I'm sure that that is the basic idea of why Voldemort can't touch him, however I'm certain, theres much more to it that Dumbledore isn't letting on to. > > Thanks, > > Tara BBOY_MN Responds: RE: The TRIUMPHANT twinkle. Sorry, I don't buy any conspiracy theories. Dumbledore simply realizes that there is a fatal flaw in Voldemort's plan. While Voldemort sees the strength he has gained by using Harry's blood; Dumbledore sees the weakenes. Somehow dispite gaining some additional power, Voldemort had corrupted himself in some way. Now, the existance of a flaw doesn't mean the execution or fulfillment of that flaw. Analogy, you could drive a car with a fatal flaw for twenty years without that flaw ever manifesting itself. It will be up to Dumbledore to find a way to exploit the flaw to his advantage. RE: What and when Voldemort knew. When Harry first faces Voldemort (PS/SS) even Harry didn't know why he was protected. He found that out in the hospital after the fact. The second time he face Voldemort, it was in the form of the memory that TOM RIDDLE had stored in his diary. That Tom Riddle was not in communication with the existing Voldemort. So when Harry to;d Riddle how he was saved, that information had no way to be transferred to the existing Voldemort. That memory of Tom Riddle died in the Chamber of Secrets without talking to anyone. In the third book, Harry doesn't face Voldemort, and in the fourth book, either Voldemort has figured it out on his own or someone else has figured it out or found out and told him. Personally, I think he had a long time to think about it and figured it out on his own. RE:How much does Harry know? Hardly anything; to some extent, I think Harry is content to operate under the principle that 'ingorance is bliss'. But it is crystal clear both to us and to Harry that there is tons of information out there that we haven't been given. bboy_mn From pat_mahony at hotmail.com Thu Aug 8 10:22:43 2002 From: pat_mahony at hotmail.com (kangasboy) Date: Thu, 08 Aug 2002 10:22:43 -0000 Subject: Birthdays- In-Reply-To: <20020808073408.15400.qmail@uadvg137.cms.usa.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42292 Heidi wrote: > And if the Magic Quill is tagged to send owls to people in the year that > they're 11 years old, that's one thing - but what if it's tagged to do it in > the year of their 11th birthday? Any 44 year olds who haven't had owls yet but > who might be magical anyway? > : glances in general direction of Petunia That could be a very good reason for explaining why someone "develops magic later in life". But I don't think it will be Petunia. I think it will be Aunt Marge. In book 3, when the glass explodes, Aunt Marge says "Did the same thing at Colonel Fubster's the other day." Now while Aunt Marge's explanation that she "Must have squeezed it too hard" may be true, it does seem a little strange that the same thing should happen in such close proximity. Roo From boggles at earthlink.net Thu Aug 8 10:43:07 2002 From: boggles at earthlink.net (Jennifer Boggess Ramon) Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2002 05:43:07 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Lily's death or her love? (was Re: A new Lily Theory: The... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42293 At 12:26 AM -0400 8/3/02, TaliaDawn3 at aol.com wrote: > >Of course, this is all highly unlikely - but *I* would like it if somehow >Harry were the *true* Heir of Slytherin (don't ask me how, if JKR wanted to >do it, she could!) because that would be counterintuitive for us. Harry's >good, Slytherin was evil. And maybe only Heirs of Slytherin can defeat each >other ... I like my first idea better I think. At the moment, I would contend that there is no proper Heir for Slytherin. Riddle tells us in the Chamber that his descent from Slytherin is from his mother - "I, in whose veins runs the blood of Salazar Slytherin himself, through my mother's side?" (CoS US paperback, p. 314). That body, the one born to Marvolo's daughter, was twisted by Dark magic into the snake-like semi-immortal one. Then Voldemort lost his physical form altogether in his confrontation with Lily and baby!Harry. At that point, there were no blood heirs of Slytherin at all. Moreover, Voldemort did not fix this when he re-embodied himself; the ingredients of his cauldron might give his new body the genetic material of his hated Muggle father, Harry, or Pettigrew, or a combination of the three, but he has absolutely no flesh or blood link to his mother anymore, and thus no legitimate claim to Slytherin's blood heritage. It is intriguing that at least one of the powers Harry supposedly gained through the Incident is the Parseltongue, which is treated by the students in CoS as if it were Salazar's personal mark. To the extent that there is an Heir of Slytherin at this point at all, Harry's got at least as good a claim as the current incarnation of Voldemort does. Perhaps that's one reason why Voldemort was so intent on using Harry's blood, and none other. -- - 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 eloiseherisson at aol.com Thu Aug 8 10:53:17 2002 From: eloiseherisson at aol.com (eloiseherisson at aol.com) Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2002 06:53:17 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Does Snape have a life-debt to Harry? (was: Who was witne... Message-ID: <1a9.66bea0f.2a83a79d@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 42294 Sorry, this is a bit late. Unfortunately the computer I was working on died (temporarily, I hope!) last night and I've had to reconnect via a second one. Richelle: > Eloise writes: > > > Which leads me to wonder.....*did* Harry hear Voldemort trying to convert > the > > Potters before killing them (I think the time-scale probably precludes > this)? > > I don't really think Voldemort tried to convert the Potters. Hagrid says > he > never did, > > > Eloise: > Actually, Hagrid *doesn't* say this, which was precisely the point I made in my previous post. He says, "Suppose the myst'ry is why You-Know-Who never tried to get them on his side *before*..." (my emphasis). Now I know that my use of English and Hagrid's are a little different, but if I were to say that, it would contain the definite implication that he hadn't *before*, but he did *then*. I concede that in his next sentence he suggests the alternative that Voldemort just wanted them 'outta' the way, but I would suggest that although Hagrid is a central, trusted figure, involved enough to know a fair deal, he is not 100% in the know. Richelle: and we have Lily's plea before she is AK'd, "I'll do anything."> > Which pretty much sounds like, if you'll spare my child I'll become your > follower. But converting them was not his intention apparently. Eloise: Not his primary intention, perhaps. I think the implication is that he certainly wanted to take out Harry at that point and that his vendetta against him isn't just revenge for his being the agent of his (Voldemort's) downfall. So a possible scenario is this: He wants the Potters on his side for some specific reason we don't yet know, 'Join my side and I will spare your lives, but the child must die,' being the conditions. Lily's statement and Voldemort's actions then become compatible. She will do anything but sacrifice her child, which is the condition of becoming his follower. James, of course, has already refused and died. There. I don't think it's necessarily so, but I do think it's a workable theory. And flooding the kitchen in pursuit of a theory (I now have to repaint the ceiling!) has to be worth something. Although that post was really about the working of the Fidelius Charm and the fact that my understanding of it implied that Snape could only have been at the Potters' if he were there with Voldemort. This was a bit of a side-issue and the part I said at the time was least likely, although I think I've strengthened the argument now. Thanks! Eloise > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Aug 8 10:54:51 2002 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 08 Aug 2002 10:54:51 -0000 Subject: The Fateful Night (VERY long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42295 The Grey Wolf writes: > At the same time, Sirius decides to check on Peter and make sure that he is still on Dumbledore's side. He arrives to Peter's den to find it empty. With a horrible sense of foreboding, he speeds to the Potters's house in Godric Hollow to find it destroyed, and Hagrid already there with Harry. He lends Hagrid his motorbike so he can take Harry some place safe, and starts looking for Peter. Hagrid leaves with Harry on the bike, and is missing for the next 24 hours, until he makes an appearance at Privet Drive with Harry.< Sirius, in his account of events at the Shrieking Shack, does not mention Hagrid, or the motorbike, or trying to take Harry with him. I maintain that we cannot state as fact that the person Hagrid met at Godric's Hollow was Sirius. IMO, it is much more likely to have been polyjuiced Pettigrew. It is hard for me to understand why Sirius would have wanted to take Harry with him if he was a) overwhelmed with grief for the Potters b) bent on finding Peter and c) knew that Dumbledore was taking personal responsibility for Harry's safety. I find it hard to believe that the real Sirius would have argued against Dumbledore's orders with Hagrid. It was Fake!Moody's disregard of Dumbledore's orders that finally tipped Dumbledore off to his disguise. I think that's a clue. I do not think anyone needs to have been there to tell Dumbledore what happened. If the MOM knows when a hovercharm is used on Privet Drive, surely Dumbledore could have a way of knowing when an AK has been used at Godric's Hollow. I think that the sacrifice counterspell is something that Lily and Dumbledore may have discussed beforehand, with Dumbledore never thinking that she would actually try it. Pippin From meboriqua at aol.com Thu Aug 8 13:01:08 2002 From: meboriqua at aol.com (jenny_ravenclaw) Date: Thu, 08 Aug 2002 13:01:08 -0000 Subject: The Fateful Night (VERY long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42296 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "pippin_999" wrote: > Sirius, in his account of events at the Shrieking Shack, does not > mention Hagrid, or the motorbike, or trying to take Harry with him. > I maintain that we cannot state as fact that the person Hagrid > met at Godric's Hollow was Sirius. > > IMO, it is much more likely to have been polyjuiced Pettigrew. It is > hard for me to understand why Sirius would have wanted to take > Harry with him if he was a) overwhelmed with grief for the Potters > b) bent on finding Peter and c) knew that Dumbledore was taking > personal responsibility for Harry's safety. I find it hard to believe that the real Sirius would have argued against Dumbledore's orders with Hagrid.> Polyjuiced Pettigrew? I find that one hard to swallow :-). I imagine that Pettigrew spent all of his time and energy dealing with Voldemort, setting the Potters up, and then setting Sirius up as well. I just don't see him sitting down and taking the time to make and take Polyjuice Potion on top of that. Polyjuice Potion takes time to take effect and to wear off; Pettigrew was too pressed for time to go through all of that. I can also see Sirius himself arguing with Hagrid because I can imagine that, after seeing the Potters' home destroyed and Pettigrew nowhere to be found, Sirius would have trouble trusting anyone, especially someone coming to him and saying "Dumbledore told me to..." I'd be suspicious as well. Besides, in the end, Sirius did let Hagrid take Harry, right? He was simply reluctant to do so. --jenny from ravenclaw ********************************** From rvotaw at i-55.com Thu Aug 8 13:35:03 2002 From: rvotaw at i-55.com (Richelle Votaw) Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2002 08:35:03 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Fateful Night (VERY long) References: Message-ID: <00d401c23ee0$6743fae0$229dcdd1@istu757> No: HPFGUIDX 42297 Jenny from Ravenclaw writes: > Polyjuiced Pettigrew? I find that one hard to swallow :-). I imagine > that Pettigrew spent all of his time and energy dealing with > Voldemort, setting the Potters up, and then setting Sirius up as well. > I just don't see him sitting down and taking the time to make and take > Polyjuice Potion on top of that. Polyjuice Potion takes time to take > effect and to wear off; Pettigrew was too pressed for time to go > through all of that. You know, I just read through Sirius' account of that night again, and it does give the implication that as soon as he realized what Peter'd done (and what he'd done) he would've gone immediately searching for him. What on earth would he have done with a baby? Let's see, baby on one hip, "I know it was you, Peter!" Let's just put baby Harry right in the face of danger, why don't we! That wouldn've been very smart. Though I don't quite see Peter Pettigrew brewing up a Polyjuice Potion. On the other hand, who else do we know that could brew up a Polyjuice potion? Snape? Disguising himself as someone who would naturally have been there? Can't see Snape as a real fan of Hagrid. But then, how did the motorbike get there? Unless the real Sirius had already been and left it. Well, I'm confusing myself. Maybe it was just plain old Sirius. Though I still don't see what he'd have done with that baby trying to take on Pettigrew. Richelle From marc.nguyen at greenheck.com Thu Aug 8 13:36:28 2002 From: marc.nguyen at greenheck.com (Nguyen, Marc) Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2002 08:36:28 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] the wand's Message-ID: <61E2AF8C78F2D211B0B70008C7F921D50616A936@orion2.greenops.com> No: HPFGUIDX 42298 Zeff writes: > Remember the first book/movie where Mr. Olivander says the wand chooses the > wizard? If so, how is it then that another wizard can use someone elses > wand? Does that person have to be in proximity to the person whose wand it > is? > > We have seen others use Harrys wand, harry use other peoples wands, and even > others using wands belong to other folks.. So is it the wand or the wizard? then Richelle wrote: >>Hmm. We do know that to do directed, focused magic you must have *a* wand. >>Not necessarily your own wand, any wand will do it seems. I would think >>that to do a complex spell it would help to have your own wand. However, if >>I'm reading it right, Wormtail performs AK using Voldemort's wand. Is that >>right? Or was it Wormtail saying "Kill the spare." That sounds rather like >>an order Voldemort would give though. Help! Now I'm confusing myself even, >>this is no help. :) Now My reply: When a student *new* to magic starts out, it's probably better to have a wand that's *moulded* to suit you. It makes the spells and charms work better. (Look at Ron's broken wand) Once you've mastered the spells, you can proabably use any wand, since it's now just a tool. To illustrate, look at sports, golf, bowling, baseball...each can have a specialized ball/bat made for a person. If you're serious about something, you want to start out with equipment that's specialized for you. Once you *know* what you're doing, any epuipment(ball/bat) should do, since you'll know how to compensate for the differeces of your equipment to the one that you're actually using. Any pro golfer should be able to play well with clubs that aren't theirs, but they'll play their best with their own clubs. That's what I'm thinking on wands, if I'm off-base, please let me know. Marc ________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 nplyon at yahoo.com Thu Aug 8 13:46:58 2002 From: nplyon at yahoo.com (nplyon) Date: Thu, 08 Aug 2002 13:46:58 -0000 Subject: Fate and Choices In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42299 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "digitopolis_2000" wrote: > The wand chooses the wizard... > We know that Harry's wand core comes from Fawkes, and so does > Voldemort's. In CS it's mentioned by Riddle that there are strange > similarities between Harry and himself. However, because of their > choices they've become very different people. But the wand 'chose' > them perhaps before all these decisions were made. > > Why would Harry and Voldemort both have wand cores from the same > phoenix - especially considering the association between phoenixes > (sp?) and loyalty? How much of this is pre-destined and how much of > it is due to their choices? JKR wants to tell us that it's our > choices that show who we truly are etc. but I keep getting this > recurring feeling whenever I read the books that many things are as a > result of fate. > > val I think this is where the choices come into play. Canon tells us that when Voldemort was in school, he was Tom Riddle, a handsome, talented, and high-performing student. I think that he may have once been a very different person from what he was but that, as he grew older, he grew more and more bitter. His father's abandonment obviously affected him greatly and I think that getting his revenge became a kind of obsession to him that made the Dark Arts look very appealing. If he were to become a powerful Dark wizard, he could certainly show his father that he is not insignificant, that he is not some piece of trash to be discarded. I'm inclined to believe that this was his first motive in his quest for power. Adopting the title of "lord" is another indication of this. By giving himself this honorific title, it's like he's trying to rise above his real situation. He hungers to be seen as important and what better way to gain importance than by giving himself a title, gaining power, and using that power to oppress others? He certainly cannot be ignored then. Then, in the tradition of many power-hungry beings, he found that once he killed his father and grandparents, he hungered for more. The more power he got, the more he craved. How does all this relate to the Fawkes wand choosing him? I think that when he was 11, he may have been just as good a kid as Harry was. If this is true, it makes sense to me that the wand with Fawkes's tail feather in it would have chosen him. However, unlike Harry, he allows his latent anger over his childhood to overtake him and, ultimately, he chooses to take his intelligence and power and use it for evil purposes. It's not necessarily that anyone is predestined to be chosen by a particular wand. Rather, I think the wand is something like Sorting Hat in that it reads what is within that person and makes its choice accordingly. I think that when Riddle points out his similarities to Harry, he is hinting at what Harry could become if Harry makes the same choices that he, Riddle, made. ~Nicole, who had fun deconstructing Voldemort. From eloiseherisson at aol.com Thu Aug 8 13:50:08 2002 From: eloiseherisson at aol.com (eloiseherisson at aol.com) Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2002 09:50:08 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Fidelius charm? Message-ID: <95.20c1c1e1.2a83d110@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 42300 Aloha disagrees with my (Eloise's) interpretation of the Fidelius charm: > My response: From the way they described it in the book, I had always > believed that the Fidelius Charm only prevented a certain person or > group of people from seeing the Potters. This was why Sirius, > Dumbledore, Hagrid etc. knew where they were and Voldemort, DEs etc. > did not. The only problem I can see with that scenario is that they > didn't necessarily know who to trust at that time (well, obviously, > huh?), but it is possible that they could cast the spell in such a way > that hid them from all "untrustworthy parties" or would only show them > to a specific few people that had to be mentioned in the spell. Eloise: This is a *big* problem, especially as Dumbledore suspected a mole in the organisation already. It adds a layer of complication in having to add the "untrustworthy parties" clause, which I don't like. It also means that it would have to somehow prevent those in the know from divulging the secret (under torture, or whatever), or those who got the information from them from understanding the answer. > thought that it would keep them hidden from *everyone*, however, and > I'm not sure what if anything in the book points to that. Eloise: Simply the fact that we are told that the secret is concealed within a "single living soul". If others also knew, but were unable to divulge the information, then it wouldn't be concealed in a single soul, but in as many as knew, wouldn't it? (Oh, I've just realised. Someone asked today what happened if the Secret Keeper died? Perhaps that's the key - "living" soul. The charm would be broken by their death. And perhaps that's the reason Sirius went ahead with the switch - if he were the more likely target, his death wouldn't release the secret. In fact, given that they thought there *was* a mole, it was the sensible thing to do as he could expect the traitor to attempt his murder, hence the fact that he, too was going into hiding. Oh dear, I feel a sudden unaccustomed glow of admiration for Sirius!) > > Anyway, I'm pretty sure the Fidelius only hides you from certain > people. Perhaps part of its power is that even if someone *not* > specifically protected against found out and told Voldemort where they > were, Voldemort wouldn't be able to see them anyway. I think that for > the Charm to be broken, the Secret Keeper specifically has to divulge > the information to the person(s) that the charm is to protect against. > So, the only way Voldie could have found them was for Wormtail to have > told him (which, obviously happened)... even if Sirius or Dumbledore > himself told him where they were hiding, he wouldn't have been able to > see them/kill them. I agree with the latter, but personally I don't think they could have, even if they'd wanted to. But hey, this is a complicated spell and I doubt if anyone but Prof. Flitwick knows how it really works. Your guess is as good as mine. I suppose JKR might have an inkling, but I'm not even sure if she really knows. ;-) > > Just my theory, though... Just mine, too... Eloise (Who will answer to Ellie, or anything polite, but thinks it might confuse other people. It confused her, at first!) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From rusalka at ix.netcom.com Thu Aug 8 14:43:26 2002 From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants) Date: Thu, 08 Aug 2002 14:43:26 -0000 Subject: The Fateful Night (VERY long) In-Reply-To: <00d401c23ee0$6743fae0$229dcdd1@istu757> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42301 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Richelle Votaw" wrote: > You know, I just read through Sirius' account of that night again, and it > does give the implication that as soon as he realized what Peter'd done (and > what he'd done) he would've gone immediately searching for him. What on > earth would he have done with a baby? Let's see, baby on one hip, "I know > it was you, Peter!" Let's just put baby Harry right in the face of danger, > why don't we! That wouldn've been very smart. I think the idea of going after Pettigrew didn't occur to Sirius until after he gave up on the idea of taking Harry. I know he didn't tell it that way in PoA, but hey, it was thirteen years later, he was feeling a bit discombobulated, and he was telling a condensed version of the story. I can easily see him leaving out all details that didn't relate to the central point, namely, "It wasn't me, it was Peter." Why would Pettigrew want to make off with Harry, anyway? The attack on the Potters has failed, Voldemort is gone, he knows Sirius is about to go after him and the DEs can't be far behind. What's he going to do with the baby? Kill him? Voldemort tried that, and look what happened to him. Use him as a hostage against Sirius? That could work, but I don't think Pettigrew was planning on a stand-off with Sirius, I think he was just planning to run. And when you're running, you don't want to be hampered by a hostage who's too small to keep up with an adult human, too big to be carried by a rat, can't be relied on to keep quiet, and needs regular diaper changes. Marina rusalka at ix.netcom.com From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Thu Aug 8 14:59:33 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Thu, 08 Aug 2002 14:59:33 -0000 Subject: Ancient Magic In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42302 > Tara First Comment: > > > First of all, I really enjoy the idea of Lily using ancient magic > with the help of Dumbledore to protect Harry "just in case". And I > feel it only makes sense that she had to sacrafice her own life in > order for the spell to work. Especially since Ollivander pointed out > in SS that her wand was excellent for *charms*. Seems like JKR was > giving a little hint right there, IMO. > > > > BBOY_MN Responds: > Why does it need to be anything more that the pure power of the pure > essense of love? Isn't the power of a selfless act of love enough to > give Harry the protection he needs? You have to admit that love is > powerful force; people live for it, they die for it, they kill for > it, kings and queens give up the throne for love, people are healed > by love, spirits are renewed, tormented souls are made whole again. > If you are of Christian belief, then the sins of the entire world for > all time were redeemed by a single selfless act of love. You're more > than welcome to your theory, but as far as I'm concerned, to be > marked by such pure powerful selfless love if more than enough power > to save Harry. Why does it have to be "just love" as you put it? Nothing in canon points towards it, and there is no way to explain why, if the love shield is as simple as love, isn't it extremely common. I'd say that people *have* loved their children before. You won't accept a spell, even when the whole books are built around the spells, but you give no reasons execpt metathinking "nah, it's not literary enbough". In potterverse, even modern spells require no words or even wand (check Snape creating ropes to bind Lupin in the shack, or Dumbledore's magic tricks), but in this situation you keep insisting it's just love. You even mention a good number of examples, but none of them created an impenetrable love shield in the recipient. On the other hand, I've given enough examples of canon that point towards an ancient spell -not an *elemental* force of magic, or *simple love*. Voldemort describes the shield as "the mark of the sacrifice ...this is *ancient magic*" (my emphasis). He does not speak of love, since he wouldn't understand it, but he *does* speak of magic, and he's an expert on magic. On the same line, he identifies the ancient magic used by Dumbledore to protect Harry at the Dursley's as "invoked", indicating that ancient magic requires invocation, and thus it's controlled by a spell. It does *not* give any hint of being a primal force channeled through love or any other sentiment. Dumbledore does *not* speak of the love shield in the first book. He explains how the combined Quirrellmort could not touch him, but he does not tell Harry how he survived the AK. We are told at that point that what *burns* Quirrellmort is the love of Lily for Harry, but Dumbledore tiptoes around how that love got to permeate Harry. He does mention that lily "died to save [Harry]", which gives weight to the *sacrifice is a important part of the love shield* idea, though. Then too, in GoF Dumbledore describes that when Voldemort took Harry's blood he had "surpassed that barrier", which indeed tells us that the love shield is in his blood. I admit that the clues are not very clear, since Dumbledore won't speak about the fateful night, and Voldemort will ignore the part love played in the protection, but I think we've got more than enough proof that ancient magic is, infact, invoked (i.e. it's "spelled" or requires some sort of ritual), while there is no mention whatsoever of primal forces tied with that magic. I'll agree that it's the love in the love shield that burnt Quirrellmort, but that love cannot be simply the result of having loving parents, or Voldemort wouldn't be able to touch a single person. And what is more, if that protection was present in almost every wizard, Voldemort would not have aimed Harry exclusively but, as Peter suggested, any witch or wizard would have served equally. Hope that helps, Grey Wolf From plumeski at yahoo.com Thu Aug 8 15:34:26 2002 From: plumeski at yahoo.com (GulPlum) Date: Thu, 08 Aug 2002 15:34:26 -0000 Subject: The Fateful Night (VERY long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42303 Pippin wrote: > Sirius, in his account of events at the Shrieking Shack, does not > mention Hagrid, or the motorbike, or trying to take Harry with him. > I maintain that we cannot state as fact that the person Hagrid > met at Godric's Hollow was Sirius. Err... Sirius doesn't actually get a chance to get that far, as he gets emotional upon recollecting the view of the destroyed house, whereupon Remus changes the subject back to Peter. Sirius' timeline account basically jumps to catching up with Peter "the next day". However, Sirius *does* manage to say that he was there, and thus Hagrid's tale and his do not contradict each other in any way. Furthermore, how did the motorbike get there? If Hagrid didn't meet Sirius but a polyjuiced Pettigrew, where did the real Sirius get to? The need for anyone to have pretended to be Sirius simply doesn't make sense, neither for the plot or the meta- narrative. > It is > hard for me to understand why Sirius would have wanted to take > Harry with him if he was a) overwhelmed with grief for the Potters > b) bent on finding Peter and c) knew that Dumbledore was taking > personal responsibility for Harry's safety. He was Harry's godfather and (presumably) had sworn to care for him if anything happened to James. It would be natural for him to consider this *just* such an occasion. Presumably precisely *because* he was overwhelmed, he needed persuading that putting Harry into Dumbledore's care would be the the better option, at least immediately. Furthermore, he presumably demanded something of Hagrid to prove that he *was* acting on Dumbeldore's behalf. All in all, I don't see his initial reluctance to hand Harry over in the slightest bit suspicious. > I do not think anyone needs to have been there to tell > Dumbledore what happened. If the MOM knows when a > hovercharm is used on Privet Drive, surely Dumbledore could > have a way of knowing when an AK has been used at Godric's > Hollow. Not to mention that the Secret Keeper spell had been broken. I'd have expected this to have been a sufficient alarm bell. Whether or not an integral part of the spell, I'd expect Dumbledore to have included some such measure when it was cast. This, however, raises another question: if, as I surmise, the broken spell drew attention to itself, there must have been a very brief delay between that and the AK being cast (nobody, not even Dumbledore, seems to have had time to react in the interim). This would therefore indicate that at least Peter accompanied Voldemort to Godric's Hollow, and made the necessary disclosures to break the spell on the spot. > I think that the sacrifice counterspell is something that Lily and > Dumbledore may have discussed beforehand, with Dumbledore > never thinking that she would actually try it. By the very nature of mother love being what toppled Voldemort and the JKR's tone when talking about it, I wouldn't expect any conscious spell or other procedure to have been necessary when invoking it. Furthermoew, at the beginning of PS/SS, when talking to McGonnagal, Dumbledore appears to know no more about what had saved Harry than anyone else. Mother love just *is*, it doesn't need to be invoked. From psychchick04 at yahoo.com Thu Aug 8 16:16:07 2002 From: psychchick04 at yahoo.com (Jacqueline Hendries) Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2002 09:16:07 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Fidelius charm? In-Reply-To: <95.20c1c1e1.2a83d110@aol.com> Message-ID: <20020808161607.18199.qmail@web9204.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 42304 I had said: >> From the way they described it in the book, I had always believed that the Fidelius Charm only prevented a certain person or group of people from seeing the Potters. This was why Sirius, Dumbledore, Hagrid etc. knew where they were and Voldemort, DEs etc. did not. The only problem I can see with that scenario is that they didn't necessarily know who to trust at that time (well, obviously, huh?), but it is possible that they could cast the spell in such a way that hid them from all "untrustworthy parties" or would only show them to a specific few people that had to be mentioned in the spell. << Eloise then said: >> This is a *big* problem, especially as Dumbledore suspected a mole in the organisation already. It adds a layer of complication in having to add the "untrustworthy parties" clause, which I don't like. It also means that it would have to somehow prevent those in the know from divulging the secret (under torture, or whatever), or those who got the information from them from understanding the answer. And now me again: I was thinking it would work something along the lines of Dumbledore's enchantment of the Mirror of Erised in SS/PS, wherein only someone who wanted to get the Stone but not use it, would be able to get it. Perhaps the Fidelius Charm is such that only someone who wants to see the Potters, but not hurt them, could know where they are at any given time? They would not need to know specifically who was after the Potters (just as in SS/PS, it wasn't specified who could or could not get the Stone) for this to work, and it would make the Potters' life in hiding a lot more pleasant if they could see friends from time to time. :) Not that this is the main point of the Charm but... Also, I imagine if what they were doing was so important that Voldemort wanted them dead, they would have to have some contact with at least Dumbledore. Eloise points out: >> Simply the fact that we are told that the secret is concealed within a "single living soul". If others also knew, but were unable to divulge the information, then it wouldn't be concealed in a single soul, but in as many as knew, wouldn't it? << Me: That's a good point. I had just interpreted it to mean that only a "single living soul" could break the charm by spilling the beans, but obviously it's open to interpretation. Eloise also said: >> Oh, I've just realised. Someone asked today what happened if the Secret Keeper died? Perhaps that's the key - "living" soul. The charm would be broken by their death. And perhaps that's the reason Sirius went ahead with the switch - if he were the more likely target, his death wouldn't release the secret. In fact, given that they thought there *was* a mole, it was the sensible thing to do as he could expect the traitor to attempt his murder, hence the fact that he, too was going into hiding... <<< Me: I think that's a good idea, plotwise, but it makes the Fidelius Charm impractical to the point of... well, pointlessness. All anyone would have to do is go after everyone in their inner circle until he found the Secret Keeper. From what we've seen so far of Voldemort, this doesn't seem to be something that would be a problem for him. I'm not sure about the relative power of the "Light Side" (as it relates to its ability to hide its own) versus the "Dark Side" (as it relates to its ability to find its enemies), but somehow I feel that Dark Magic is a bit more powerful in this regard. I could be wrong, of course, but it seems to me that in a time of war, casting a charm that depends on any one person living for a long time would not be very effective. Of course, that leaves the problem of what would happen if the Secret Keeper did die... perhaps the Fidelius Charm involves a "second," like a Wizard's Duel? Ellie then said: >> I suppose JKR might have an inkling, but I'm not even sure if she really knows. ;-) I agree with you wholeheartedly there! ~ Aloha (who is waiting impatiently for Book 5 to explain all of this) ===== jackie04 at brandeis.edu __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? HotJobs - Search Thousands of New Jobs http://www.hotjobs.com From jodel at aol.com Thu Aug 8 15:15:05 2002 From: jodel at aol.com (jodel at aol.com) Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2002 11:15:05 EDT Subject: More on Snape, Pettigrew and Spying (post-Voldy) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42305 I think that Snape (whether he was at Godric's Hollow or not) proved to be invaluable in the post-Voldemort mop-up of the DE activity. For example, I think that he was almost certainly the person who provided the information which resulted in the capture of the Lestranges and Barty Crouch (and an unidentified confederate). This, as well as the knowledge that Crouch is suposed to be dead, may account for his shock as well as the immediate recognition on Snape's part when the polyjuice wore off. Snape's student years at Hogwarts are very likely to have overlapped Croch Jr.'s, and I would suspect that the Crouches were another old Slytherin family. (Side note: I suspect that a good deal of the reason that Crouch and Petigrew were able to subdue Moody was the shock effect of finding himself under attack by two "dead" men. Ghosts may attack, but they cannot perform spells, so far as we know.) By the time the Lestranges were arrested, there was no longer the consideration of leaving the small fry untampered with in hopes of catching the big fish. Now the emphasis was to get the as much of the inner circle out of commission as possible and leave the small fry without a potential hub to regroup around. Things on the DE's side were not helped by the apparant fact that the Dark Marks all disapeared when the Dark Lord did. That would have made a mess of their communication lines, and it is possible that sending up the image of the Dark Mark was no longer possible, either (giving additional reason for the panic on all sides at the World Cup when Crouch Jr. managed to do exactly that. The Marks were beginning to return once Voldemort was again, however vestigally, on the physical plane. But they may not have been visible even to their bearers yet.) Which introduces a note of ambiguity to Dumbledore's testimony regarding Snape at Karkaroff's trial, and his statement that Snape HAD BEEN a Death Eater. We do not know how long after Voldemort's disapearance that Karkaroff's trial took place. It is just barely possible that Snape may have used that lag in time to convince someone (*cough* Lucius Malfoy? Certainly not Voldemort himself) that Voldemort had previously (and privately) ordered Snape to keep an eye on Dumbledore and that Snape had managed to convince Dumbledore that he was working for him, feeding him small bits of misinformation at Voldemort's discretion and giving the impression that he had changed sides long before the debacle at Godric's Hollow. And that now he was going to spy on Dumbledore as a possible link to information regarding the fate of Voldemort. Whether this story is plausible or not is debatable. But it only needs to be plausible, it does not need to be true -- if it was only a cover story to allay suspicions and retain contact with the likes of Malfoy (who he knows damn well wasn't under Imperio, but cannot prove it. Malfoy dodged the bullet this time. Snape, and Dumbledore, are still hoping for a next time.). In order to carry verisimilitude, this story would depend upon Snape having had some obvious reason to have been in contact with Dumbledore during the later years of Voldemort's rise. Since Snape would have been no more than about 21 or 22 at the time of Godric's Hollow, that would require some reason for him to be still in contact with Hogwarts after graduation, but before he was old enough to be hired as a teacher. As a suggestion; I think I recall some interview comment by Rowling to the effect that there were not any wizarding universities in her view of her world. If this is the case, then advanced training would probably be a matter of either independent study or within a formal Master/Aprentice program. The study of Potions mastery, with its extensive physical component and its dependence upon wandless control would appear to be a field which would require some sort of advanced training. It would stand to reason that the major wizarding training academies might have some sort of responsibility to oversee such independent study programs. If this is the case, then Snape would have had a built in reason to have retained contact with Hogwarts Academy after graduation. Certainly for the 5-7 years that one might project for either an Independent study program or an Aprenticship. Given the fact that Dumbledore DID make that particular defense at Karkaroff's trial, WHY did Karkaroff go running to Snape once the Dark Mark started returning? Didn't the fool realize that it was probably information from Snape that had resulted in his arrest in the first place? I mean, really! Of course, now that Voldemort really IS back the fat is in the fire. I don't quite know how Snape would be able to get around Dumbledore's testimony at Karkaroff's trial. Explaining his actions in PS/SS are a piece of cake in comparison. ("How was I to know that was you under Quirrell's turban? Quirrell wasn't one of your followers! Why didn't you TELL me?" [for that matter, why DIDN'T Squirrelymort contact his followers and get them to help him. What are followers FOR?] "How was I to know it was Quirrell hexing the broom? I thought it was one of my 7th years. Thwarting a youngster who is flirting with a spell in Azkaban is part of my JOB, damnit!") But the trial testimony can't be weaseled out of that easily. (Side note: for the record, I think the reason that Dumbledore knew to send Hagrid to Godric's Hollow so soon was that either Snape told him the attack would be that particular night, or he had the house bugged at all entrances to alert him to any arrivals.) Some More Thoughts on Pettigrew: Somebody, (i'm not going to go back to try to find the message) brought up the question of why Pettigrew chose to hide out with the Weasleys. I personally believe that one of the best reasons to suspect that Sirius's estimation of Petigrew is grossy inadequate is the shrewdness Pettigrew displayed in having chosen the Burrow as his bolt-hole. Pettigrew was on the run from both sides once it turned out that he had led Voldemort into a trap. (The DE's do not tolerate mistakes which "inconvenience" them.) If he had had a snowball's chance of convincing the DEs that he was still valuable enough not to be killed, Sirius would be dead from their encounter and Peter would have been acting the part of a live hero avenging his friends. But he knew there was no chance of that and that if he intended to go on living, there was no alternative but to disapear. It was a calculated risk leaving Sirius alive to pick up whatever information was making the rounds in Azkaban, but who would Sirius tell, and who would believe him if he did? And it wasn't like he was ever comming back... Pettigrew knew the Weasleys. He had been spying for Voldemort within the ranks of Dumbledore's supporters for the previous year and even though I doubt that he was anything like part of Dumbledore's inner circle, he was high enough to know how close Arthur and Molly were in Dumbledore's confidences. And the Weasleys had a horde of little boys who would have welcomed a pet. He knew he would be safely concealed with the Weasleys for YEARS. Also, Arthur worked for the Ministry and would have been likely to hear everything that was interdepartmental knowledge regarding Dumbledore, Voldemort AND the Death Eaters. And you just KNOW that Arther discusses *everything* with Molly after the kids are in bed. In fact it probably put a considerable spoke in Peter's wheel when Ron hauled him off to Hogwarts and away from his prime information source. But Hogwarts also had distinct possibilities for a self-employeed spy. (I suspect he slept so much during the daytime because he spent hours in surveylence during the evening and into the night. Somewhere in all this he learned that Voldemort was lurking about in Albania and kept it in mind. Because he never lost track of the possibility of someday needing to make a break for it and throw himself on Voldemort's mercy. After all, it was Peter who nabbed Voldemort's wand. (Voldemort, after all, was in no condition to. (Strong corroborating evidence that Peter, at least, WAS indeed at Godric's Hollow.) And dead useful that, since his own had to be left at the scene of his "murder". He kept it with him all his time at the Weasleys, and if Remus and Sirius had had the presence of mind to search him when they forced him back into human form in the shrieking shack, they would have probably found it. But he was too comfortable living as a pet rat to take the kind of risks that any such desparate measure required unless forced to it. Which he was. So far the gamble has paid off. From our observations of him it is clear that Peter Pettigrew clearly believes in giving the customer what he wants. If an enraged Sirius Black can be disarmed by a shivering supliant, shiver he will. Same to Voldemort. In spades. Twice on Sunday. Peter isn't proud. Not in that way. He never seems to have needed to lead the troups. But he LIKES being indespensible to powerful people. (A possible source of underlying friction between him and Sirius, that. They both were after the same position within James's little group.) And, whatever witless act he may decide to put on for the benefit of witnesses, his brain is the kind that doesn't have an off switch. We haven't seen the last of Peter Pettigrew. Not by a long shot. -JOdel From bdmorrp at budget.state.ny.us Thu Aug 8 16:18:45 2002 From: bdmorrp at budget.state.ny.us (erisedstraeh2002) Date: Thu, 08 Aug 2002 16:18:45 -0000 Subject: Pettigrew as Voldemort Traitor? (WAS: Pettigrew & hiding) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42306 Inge wrote: >I can understand why Pettigrew had to be in hiding since he was >supposedly the dead hero. But I could never understand why he was >hiding at the Weasley's of all people. I mean - why not at some of >the loyal DE's? Why would the DE's have reason to see Pettigrew as >their enemy? Now me: I think this is explained in PoA when, in the shrieking shack, Sirius says to Pettigrew (liberal translation - I don't have the book with me) "You couldn't go back to the DEs because the DEs believed the double-crosser double-crossed them" since Voldemort met his downfall in Harry based on Pettigrew's intelligence as to the Potters' whereabouts. And Sirius says that Pettigrew wouldn't go back to Voldemort until Voldy "was the biggest bully in the playground." Sirius also says that Pettigrew wanted to be with a well-connected wizarding family like the Weasleys so that he would be able to learn when Voldemort did in fact become the "biggest bully." Sirius' comments intrigue me, because they imply that Pettigrew knew that when Voldemort tried to kill Harry, he would lose his powers. In the graveyard scene in GoF, when Pettigrew is sobbing over his bleeding arm stump and Voldemort is debating whether to give him a new hand, Voldemort calls Pettigrew "worthless and traitorous." Does this suggest that Voldemort also believes that Pettigrew knew that Harry would be his downfall? I can't think of another instance in the books where Pettigrew did something that Voldemort would consider "traitorous" (unless it's simply that Pettigrew didn't try to find Voldy for 12 years). And if Pettigrew did know that Harry would be Voldemort's downfall, how did he know? How could he know in advance that Lily would sacrifice herself for Harry and that the AK would rebound and hit Voldy, destroying his powers? Did Lily tell him she planned a self- sacrifice? If so, then both Lily and Pettigrew must have known that the sacrifice would save Harry's life and destroy Voldemort's powers. Seems a stretch! But perhaps while Lily's sacrifice saved Harry's life, but it was something "special" about Harry that destroyed Voldemort's powers when the AK rebounded (the power of the heir of Gryffindor, perhaps)? So did Pettigrew know that Harry was the heir of Gryffindor (this is less of a stretch since he was good friends with James)? Any thoughts?? Cheers, Phyllis From johnryanmcc at yahoo.com Thu Aug 8 16:38:53 2002 From: johnryanmcc at yahoo.com (johnryanmcc) Date: Thu, 08 Aug 2002 16:38:53 -0000 Subject: Did Snape have a life debt to James? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42307 I was wondering what people thought about this. Since James saved Snape from the Willow tree, did Snape owe James like Pettigrew owes Harry? Several different people stated James saved Snapes life throughout a couple of the books. Maybe that's another reason he hated James. Maybe it's why Dumbledore trusts him. Who knows? Any thoughts on this would be appreciated, Thanks. John McCutcheon From jestahijinx at hotmail.com Thu Aug 8 18:46:24 2002 From: jestahijinx at hotmail.com (Jesta Hijinx) Date: Thu, 08 Aug 2002 18:46:24 +0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Why NOT Lily? (was: Lily, Harry, and Voldemort's demise) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42308 With my usual "Rowling can do anything she wants" caveat...:-) I am not seeing as big of an "everyone needs to be related" theme in HP as, say, in the "Star Wars" mythos (just pulling that from off the top of my head - not suggesting SW is HP's greatest parallel, either). It's a world of magic; everyone has supernatural powers (as we understand "natural" and "supernatural" to begin with) as it is. There may be certain traits that are bloodline-linked - the opening of the CoS, as a huge starter. I also tend to think of the powers of wizardry as likely to be something akin to a genetic mutation - and not an uncommon one. It suddenly springs up, as in the case of Hermione or Lily, in a child of muggle parents. And it seems to be able to fade out over generations - as with Argus Filch, perhaps. Without a closer knowledge that would trace generations, I can't soundly theorize on that line, although it seems to be one avenue for what might happen - there doesn't seem to be any kind of expectation that it would suddenly appear, as with Hermione, and then disappear with her children. Take James and Lily as an example - James is evidently from a long wizarding line (my guess is he's the heir to Gryffindor - I suspect "Godric's Hollow" is the old family seat), and Lily is the wizard equivalent of "nouveau riche" (only in a metaphorical sense) - yet Hagrid speaks of both of Harry's parents as "what yer parents were". There is sound expectation of Harry's abilities and prospects *based on what his parents were*, and not what his environment was. But...I would be really disappointed, personally, if everyone significant was related by blood rather than that they were in each others' lives because it's a community, there's no escaping that the wizarding world in Britain seems to be an integrated and newsy community, and this was how they impacted each other. I don't think Lily is Voldemort's daughter; I think she and Petunia are the daughters of the Evans family, who are muggles (aren't there some snide remarks about Lily's parentage in there somewhere? I can't remember today). I do think Snape was in love with Lily in school; I think he probably pursued her to whatever degree one does in school, tried to get her to go out with him, but she was already in love with James. I doubt James had to contest much with Severus for Lily's affections; I suspect he never was her cup of tea, and probably she tried to let him down gently - whether he took it outwardly well or not is questionable but that wouldn't leave him thrilled with James. My take on James' attitude towards Severus is that Severus had long been a favorite target of the Fab Four, and that his crush on his girl didn't make him more or less of one - but he did end up saving his life, the same as he would any other Hogwarts student who'd wound up in danger, and probably that also didn't make him feel more or less positive towards Severus. Just "oh, well, that's how it wound up". Felinia _________________________________________________________________ Join the worlds largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com From Elvishooked at hotmail.com Thu Aug 8 16:49:44 2002 From: Elvishooked at hotmail.com (elvishooked) Date: Thu, 08 Aug 2002 16:49:44 -0000 Subject: More on Snape, Pettigrew and Spying (post-Voldy) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42309 Its not that I wish to stand out as the fool here - but I STILL don't understand why Pettigrew would have reason to fear the DE's. Jodel explained: --- In HPforGrownups at y..., jodel at a... wrote: <<>> What trap? Pettigrew had no way of knowing that Voldemort would fail that night. The DE's must have known that it wasn't Pettigrew's fault that things went wrong. Why would they be after him instead of help hide and protect him after Sirius was sent to Azkaban? Well - maybe it's just me - but I just don't get it. Inge From kkearney at students.miami.edu Thu Aug 8 19:30:51 2002 From: kkearney at students.miami.edu (corinthum) Date: Thu, 08 Aug 2002 19:30:51 -0000 Subject: Life-debts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42310 John MsCutcheon wrote: > I was wondering what people thought about this. Since James saved > Snape from the Willow tree, did Snape owe James like Pettigrew owes > Harry? Several different people stated James saved Snapes life > throughout a couple of the books. Maybe that's another reason he > hated James. Maybe it's why Dumbledore trusts him. Who knows? Any > thoughts on this would be appreciated, Thanks. I'm going to take this moment to put forth my "Snape does NOT owe James for the life-debt, nor does anyone else" theory. The life-debt seems to be a pretty consistent theme on this list. However, I don't believe this is as important a concept to wizards as many make it out to be. The concept of a life debt has been mentioned only once in canon as far as I can recall (at work, no books to consult). This is when Harry asks Dumbledore why Snape hated him, and why he would then save his life. Dumbledore replies by saying that James had done something Snape could never forgive: saved his life. Harry accepts this as the only reason for the dislike, and the only reason Snape would try to save him. However, I believe Dumbledore intentionally oversimplified things in order to 1) give Harry some positive info. about his father and 2) to stop any further questions regarding Snape's role in his organization. Any support for this theory? Yes, though indirect. Reason #1: Snape has much better motivations for his actions in PS/SS. Snape works for Dumbledore, not just as a professor but as an anti-Voldemort soldier-type person. His objective throughout PS/SS is to stop Quirrelmort from finding the stone. Once Quirrelmort discovers that Harry Potter is at Hogwarts, he renews his attempts on Harry's life. Whether or not Snape's hatred of Harry is real or an elaborate plot, he isn't about to let Harry die. His hatred seems much more petty than that. This behavior continues throughout the series: Snape always maintains a distinct dislike for Harry during times of relative peace, but any time Harry's life is in danger, he attempts a rescue (and I include the end of PoA in the latter category; that Snape was mistaken is irrelevant). All in all, Snape seems to have much more important reasons to save Harry than some childhood life-debt. That Dumbledore didn't go into detail about Snape's role in the fight against Voldemort in Harry's first year seems perfectly normal, especially considering that by Harry's fourth year, he still does not know Snape's full role. Reason #2: Snape's reaction to Harry assertion. When Harry mentions that he knows Snape hated his father because James saved Snape's life, Snape gets angry. Not because he feels Harry is correct, though. Because he feels Harry is putting James on a pedastal that Snape himself has never seen. He procedes to set the record straight: James and his friends endangered his life, then corrected the mistake. I get the impression that Snape hated James long before then. This incident simply added fuel to the fire. Does Snape feel slightly indebted to James? Possibly, a little, enough to increase his hatred of James. But not enough to risk his own life for him later. Snape seems to have justified James' behavior in his own mind as simple self-preservation. It is Dumbledore, not Snape, who feels Snape ought to be indebted. So, I believe that before the PS/SS time period, Snape may have felt slightly indebted to James, but not nearly enough to switch sides or anything drastic like that. The motivation for this was entirely separate. After PS/SS, there is absolutely no debt left. James saved him, he saved Harry, everyone's even. And as far as the Peter-Harry life-debt goes, I doubt this exists so explicitly. If Peter felt an overwhelming sense of guilt at hurting his benefactor, he certainly didn't show it in the graveyard scene. If the so-called life-debt didn't manifest itself then, then I don't think it ever will. Which isn't to say I don't think Harry's actions in letting Peter live will go unanswered. I simply don't think it will be such a straightforward result. Well, that's my theory. Life-debts lead (in the one case we've seen) to petty jealousy, but need additional motives to lead to reciprocal action. They may influence but do not command. -Corinth From ksnidget at aol.com Thu Aug 8 19:55:00 2002 From: ksnidget at aol.com (ksnidget at aol.com) Date: Thu, 08 Aug 2002 15:55:00 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: More on Snape, Pettigrew and Spying (post-Voldy) Message-ID: <4E1CBAF0.7536A21A.007B4FA9@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 42311 Inge owled to the list >Its not that I wish to stand out as the fool here - but I STILL don't >understand why Pettigrew would have reason to fear the DE's. > >Jodel explained: > >--- In HPforGrownups at y..., jodel at a... wrote: > ><<he had led >Voldemort into a trap. (The DE's do not tolerate mistakes which >"inconvenience" them.)>>> > >What trap? Pettigrew had no way of knowing that Voldemort would fail >that night. The DE's must have known that it wasn't Pettigrew's fault >that things went wrong. Why would they be after him instead of help >hide and protect him after Sirius was sent to Azkaban? > >Well - maybe it's just me - but I just don't get it. Perhaps the only person who *knew* what the info Peter gave Voldemort was Peter and Voldemort. It wouldn't surprise me if the DE's either knew or suspected that they had a spy in the ranks. After all they would put someone in close to Dumbledore to spy on him and his people...surely they suspected the reverse could be true. Now imagine youre a suspicious type. Someone who should have some loyalty to the other side turns traitor for your side. Someone you haven't felt all that eager to trust, yet or if ever. He gives info to your side, info that leads to the downfall of the supposedly invincible leader. A downfall that doesn't let you talk to the leader to find out if he was double-crossed, or if it was an unfortunate accident. Something that there was no way your little spy could have known or prevented. No one really knew what happened there. It makes some sense for the DE's to wonder if Peter led Voldemort into a trap. Heck, Peter being a rat may have gone to one of the DE's houses snuck in (he's supposed to be dead after all) and overhears them talking about him. About how they are glad the little so and so got himself offed by Sirius. Saves them the hassle of tracking him down and forcing a confession out of him to decide whether to kill him or not. Or just as likely them being put out that Sirius killed him before they got a chance to torture whatever truth they wanted out of him. Realizing that they A) aren't going to hide him B) will probably torture him. After all, if he is the only witness they have to Voldemort's downfall I doubt they would ask him for details politely over tea and cake. No he was gonna have to tell them what happened from the wrong end of a wand, painfully. Probably even if they thought he didn't do anything wrong. We *are* talking about Death Eaters here and who thinks that they would handle their grieving process in a healthy and non-violent way. Ksnidget From jestahijinx at hotmail.com Thu Aug 8 20:07:56 2002 From: jestahijinx at hotmail.com (Jesta Hijinx) Date: Thu, 08 Aug 2002 20:07:56 +0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Would Lily have been spared?/AK curse Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42312 >"...but your mother neednt have died...she was trying >to protect you..." > >Dunno why he'd bother to make that up. Well, unless, >of course, it's to set up his next line, which is "Now >give me the Stone, unless you want her to have died in >vain." OK, I take it back. Can't trust him, can we? > Sadism? What particular need has Voldemort of truth-telling? >Still, this line paired with "Stand aside, you silly >girl" in Harrys dementor-induced memories are the >closest canon comes to confirming that Lily was not >originally a target. > ...but you're right: this pair-up does suggest that she was an obstacle, not a target. So either V was after James and Harry, or just Harry. >The fact remains that killing her anyway because she >became an annoyance is totally consistent with >Voldemort's character. Yep. He doesn't evince any values of preserving life for its own sake - merely what is useful to him. Felinia _________________________________________________________________ Join the worlds largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com From bdmorrp at budget.state.ny.us Thu Aug 8 20:02:06 2002 From: bdmorrp at budget.state.ny.us (erisedstraeh2002) Date: Thu, 08 Aug 2002 20:02:06 -0000 Subject: Harry saved from AK by his mother In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42313 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "grey_wolf_c" wrote: > Grace Saalsaa wrote: > But! Sure, Voldy tells the DE this - but he heard it from Harry > when he was Tom Riddle, down in the Chamber of Secrets. and Grey Wolf responded: > Voldemort could not have heard it from Harry down in the Chamber of > Secrets: he was not there; don't confuse Diary!Riddle with > Voldemort!Riddle. They're two different beings, and the first was > destroyed at the end of book 2, while the second one was licking > his wounds in an albanian forest. now me: Help! This makes me very confused, probably because I'm a newbie, but how can Diary!Riddle be a "different being" than Voldemort! Riddle? I always thought of them as one and the same, since in CoS, Voldemort is only spirit, and has to embody another being in order to be seen be others. I thought of Diary!Riddle as a way Voldemort's spirit was able to be seen to others, through the memory of Riddle. When Harry plunges the basilisk fang into the diary and Riddle disappears, I thought that Voldemort's spirit then returned to Albania. Plus, while JKR references him as "Riddle" during the encounter with Harry in the Chamber, there is one instance where she writes "*Voldemort* was laughing." Just a typo? Or is she trying to tell us that Riddle's memory really was embodying Voldemort? Any clarification would be most appreciated! Cheers, Phyllis From lupinesque at yahoo.com Thu Aug 8 20:14:16 2002 From: lupinesque at yahoo.com (lupinesque) Date: Thu, 08 Aug 2002 20:14:16 -0000 Subject: Magical Marge? was Birthdays In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42314 Roo wrote re: late-developing witches/wizards: > I think it will be Aunt Marge. In > book 3, when the glass explodes, Aunt Marge says "Did the > same thing at Colonel Fubster's the other day." Now while Aunt > Marge's explanation that she "Must have squeezed it too hard" > may be true, it does seem a little strange that the same thing > should happen in such close proximity. Hm, so someone in the room was very upset at the time . . . could have been Marge, good point. But she seems to like the Colonel so much--what happened to make her so furious that she magically exploded a glass? Maybe it's Colonel Fubster who lost his temper at Marge (who wouldn't?), and who therefore is the nascent wizard--or just a wizard masquerading as a Muggle, who will improbably appear to save Harry from some future Dursleyan crime. Amy Z From jestahijinx at hotmail.com Thu Aug 8 20:18:13 2002 From: jestahijinx at hotmail.com (Jesta Hijinx) Date: Thu, 08 Aug 2002 20:18:13 +0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] The use of the name Voldemort - Invoking Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42315 >I couldn't see this on the VFAQ, so excuse me if it's in there. > >My friend and I were wondering about the use (or lack, there of) of >the name Voldemort. >Now, wizards and witches don't say the name because they are afraid >of it etc. >So, why would muggle borns (i.e. Hermione) be afraid to >use the name?? In the books, it is only Dumbledore and Harry (mostly) >that call him Voldemort. It doens't make sense. > >And doesn't the insistence of Wizards of not saying his name, incite >a fear that isn't there? If they weren't scared of Voldemort, perhaps >he wouldn't be so powerful. > >Just our little thoughts, would like to hear yours :-) > >Jean > Hi Jean and all - My thoughts about this is that, even in our culture, words can be a very powerful weapon. Think of the kneejerk reactions a term like "Nazi" provokes. That's one. the second is a more arcane sense that has hung about many magical and mystical traditions, that to say the name of a being or thing, or to chant or intone it, is to call or invoke the presence of same. I think that is what is at work here. Felinia _________________________________________________________________ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx From eloiseherisson at aol.com Thu Aug 8 20:52:29 2002 From: eloiseherisson at aol.com (eloiseherisson at aol.com) Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2002 16:52:29 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Life-debts Message-ID: <199.b199cdc.2a84340d@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 42316 Corinth: > The concept of a life debt has been mentioned only once in canon as > far as I can recall (at work, no books to consult). This is when > Harry asks Dumbledore why Snape hated him, and why he would then save > his life. Dumbledore replies by saying that James had done something > Snape could never forgive: saved his life. Harry accepts this as the > only reason for the dislike, and the only reason Snape would try to > save him. However, I believe Dumbledore intentionally oversimplified > things in order to 1) give Harry some positive info. about his father > and 2) to stop any further questions regarding Snape's role in his > organization. > No, the life-debt thing is mentioned by Dumbledore more directly in PoA after Harry regrets sparing Pettigrew's life: "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." (PoA, p310, UK paperback) I think it is in the light of this that many of us read back Dumbledore's words about Snape to imply that he owes a life-debt to James. Eloise [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Ali at zymurgy.org Thu Aug 8 21:09:08 2002 From: Ali at zymurgy.org (alhewison) Date: Thu, 08 Aug 2002 21:09:08 -0000 Subject: Ancient Magic In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42317 > > BBOY_MN wrote:- Why does it need to be anything more that the pure power of the pure essense of love? Isn't the power of a selfless act of love enough to give Harry the protection he needs? You have to admit that love is powerful force; people live for it, they die for it, they kill for it, kings and queens give up the throne for love, people are healed by love, spirits are renewed, tormented souls are made whole again. If you are of Christian belief, then the sins of the entire world for all time were redeemed by a single selfless act of love. You're more than welcome to your theory, but as far as I'm concerned, to be marked by such pure powerful selfless love if more than enough power to save Harry. > Grey Wolf responds:- > Why does it have to be "just love" as you put it? Nothing in canon > points towards it, and there is no way to explain why, if the love > shield is as simple as love, isn't it extremely common. I'd say that people *have* loved their children before. You won't accept a spell, even when the whole books are built around the spells, but you give no reasons execpt metathinking "nah, it's not literary enbough". > Snip > On the same line, he identifies the ancient magic used by Dumbledore to protect Harry at the Dursley's as "invoked", indicating that ancient magic requires invocation, and thus it's controlled by a spell. It does *not* give any hint of being a primal force channeled through love or any other sentiment. > > Dumbledore does *not* speak of the love shield in the first book. He explains how the combined Quirrellmort could not touch him, but he does not tell Harry how he survived the AK. We are told at that point that what *burns* Quirrellmort is the love of Lily for Harry, but Dumbledore tiptoes around how that love got to permeate Harry. He does mention that lily "died to save [Harry]", which gives weight to the *sacrifice is a important part of the love shield* idea, though. Then too, in GoF Dumbledore describes that when Voldemort took Harry's blood he had "surpassed that barrier", which indeed tells us that the love shield is in his blood. , but that love cannot be simply the result of having loving parents, or Voldemort wouldn't be able to touch a single person. And what is more, if that protection was present in almost every wizard, Voldemort would not have aimed Harry exclusively but, as Peter suggested, any witch or wizard would have served equally. I sit on the fence a bit, but basically agree with BBOY:- Firstly, I agree with many of the posters who think that the protections surrounding Harry WILL amount to more than the "Love Shield". I seem to remember Hermione mentioning some kind of "Power Enhancing" Spells which she'd come across in practice OWL Papers - >From memory, I think that was in GoF. If these existed, I'm sure that Lily knowing that her [son] was in danger would have cast them to bolster up his defences. However, I disagree that Lily's refusal to step aside and stop shielding Harry - and thereby sacrifising herself is necessarily inconsistent with the idea of invoking "Ancient Magic". Lily knows that by continuing to shield Harry she will die, her refusal to stop, and her panicky pleas may be sufficient to invoke the Ancient Magic, we simply don't know. It is possible that it is a combination of this Ancient Magic combined with other forces and spells already at work within Harry that lead to the AK being repelled, but I don't think we should underestimate the power of Love - Voldemort did, and look what happened to him! The idea of Self Sacrifice through Love is a strong theme running through our culture: "Greater Love hath no man than this, that he lay down his life for a friend". Take this concept further. Is there any bond closer than that of mother and baby? Whilst Sirius thinks that Pettigrew should have been prepared to resist Voldemort by dying - as the other Marauders would have done for him, this sacrifice belongs perhaps more to the "Wizard Warrior ethos". Lily's love is unconstrained by such cultural expectations and is perhaps purer and stronger because of that. Her immediate Choice is between life and death. Whether her life expectations would have been minutes or years is perhaps immaterial to the sacrifice. Her love chooses to protect Harry. There is no greater love, and perhaps no greater magic? Why must they be mutually exclusive? Thus, it is not simply Lily's love for Harry that saves him, but the love that leads to her sacrifice - this marks Harry out over and above the average wizard who will as you say have been loved by parents. Ali From smiller at dslextreme.com Thu Aug 8 20:53:32 2002 From: smiller at dslextreme.com (constance_vigilance) Date: Thu, 08 Aug 2002 20:53:32 -0000 Subject: Fawkes/Phoenixes/Dumbledore/ Gryffindor In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42318 Jumping into the Dumbledore is an animagus debate: "redandgoldlion" wrote > Anyway, I think Dumbledore is an animagus. I don't think he's > just any old animagus either; I think he is Fawkes. It wouldn't surprise me at all if Dumbledore is an animagus, but my money is on a bumblebee. "Dumbledore" means bumblebee in obsolete English. We heard Dumbledore say that there are other ways of appearing invisible. Such as becoming very small, perhaps? Also, I think JKR's reasoning that she picked the name because she envisioned Dumbledore humming to himself sounds pretty lame. Where in the canon have we actually heard of him humming to himself? I think she picked the name for another reason but didn't want to spoil the story by telling us. Anyway, that's why I think he's a bug. ~Constance Vigilance~ From Elvishooked at hotmail.com Thu Aug 8 21:11:09 2002 From: Elvishooked at hotmail.com (elvishooked) Date: Thu, 08 Aug 2002 21:11:09 -0000 Subject: Life-debts In-Reply-To: <199.b199cdc.2a84340d@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42319 > Corinth: > > The concept of a life debt has been mentioned only once in canon as > > far as I can recall (at work, no books to consult). This is when > > Harry asks Dumbledore why Snape hated him, and why he would then save > > his life. Dumbledore replies by saying that James had done something > > Snape could never forgive: saved his life. > > > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., eloiseherisson at a... wrote: > No, the life-debt thing is mentioned by Dumbledore more directly in PoA after > Harry regrets sparing Pettigrew's life: > > "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." > > (PoA, p310, UK paperback) > > I think it is in the light of this that many of us read back Dumbledore's > words about Snape to imply that he owes a life-debt to James. > > Eloise There is a difference between *saving someone's life* and *sparing someone's life (when you had reason to kill this person but chose not to)* Maybe the life debt has to do only with the latter? Inge From bdmorrp at budget.state.ny.us Thu Aug 8 20:29:49 2002 From: bdmorrp at budget.state.ny.us (erisedstraeh2002) Date: Thu, 08 Aug 2002 20:29:49 -0000 Subject: Weasley family ages In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42320 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Molly wrote: > I think I've figured out most of JKR's English historical > references in the Weasley family might be (just kind of guesses, I > haven't researched any of this): Arthur - King Arthur, Percy - > Knight Percival (or Percival the Fool (hmm)), Charlie, Bill & > George - all Kings of England, Molly - Mary, Queen of Scots, Ginny - > Guinevere, Fred - Lord North. Ron - I have no clue. now me: I'm probably being too simplistic, but my understanding is that JKR modeled the character of Ron Weasley after a good friend of hers named Shawn (or Sean, I can't remember how it's spelled, but she dedicates CoS to him and he owns (owned?) a Ford Anglia). So I always assumed that she just picked a name that rhymed with "Shawn." That being said, I think it's clear that JKR bases a lot of her names on historical persons and places, so it's entirely possible that the names of the Weasley family members are based on English history. Cheers, Phyllis From marc.nguyen at greenheck.com Thu Aug 8 20:25:53 2002 From: marc.nguyen at greenheck.com (Nguyen, Marc) Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2002 15:25:53 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Harry saved from AK by his mother Message-ID: <61E2AF8C78F2D211B0B70008C7F921D50616A941@orion2.greenops.com> No: HPFGUIDX 42321 Phyllis writes: <<<<<<<<<< Help! This makes me very confused, probably because I'm a newbie, but how can Diary!Riddle be a "different being" than Voldemort! Riddle? I always thought of them as one and the same, since in CoS, Voldemort is only spirit, and has to embody another being in order to be seen be others. I thought of Diary!Riddle as a way Voldemort's spirit was able to be seen to others, through the memory of Riddle. When Harry plunges the basilisk fang into the diary and Riddle disappears, I thought that Voldemort's spirit then returned to Albania. Plus, while JKR references him as "Riddle" during the encounter with Harry in the Chamber, there is one instance where she writes "*Voldemort* was laughing." Just a typo? Or is she trying to tell us that Riddle's memory really was embodying Voldemort? Any clarification would be most appreciated! >>>>>> My reply: The dairy!Riddle was just an intelligent "video" of Tom Riddle at age 16. It's like if a friend died, and you found a video of him/her when they were 16. if you could interact with the video, they would have no knowledge of you or anyhting that happened after they made the video. In the diary's case, Ginny was writing to it, and it could retain these bits of information and use it. that's how diary!Riddle knew what happened to him, it was told to him through Ginny. Marc ________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 marc.nguyen at greenheck.com Thu Aug 8 20:18:19 2002 From: marc.nguyen at greenheck.com (Nguyen, Marc) Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2002 15:18:19 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Life-debts Message-ID: <61E2AF8C78F2D211B0B70008C7F921D50616A940@orion2.greenops.com> No: HPFGUIDX 42322 Corinth WROTE: <<>> I agree with you here, I didn't get the feeling that it was like a life-debt in Stars Wars where the person's life you save is "now your servant forever until they save your life back". I just thought that it was a I-owe-you-a-huge-favor-since-you-saved-my-life-but-I-understand-that-I-don't -have-to-repay-you-back. Otherwise, wouldn't a lot of the WW have a life-debt to Harry since he "destroyed" Voldemort that first time? and he did save a lot of lives by killing the basilik from CoS. that would have killed lots of kids if left alone. Corinth also WROTE: <<<< Reason #1: Snape has much better motivations for his actions in PS/SS. Snape works for Dumbledore, not just as a professor but as an anti-Voldemort soldier-type person. His objective throughout PS/SS is to stop Quirrelmort from finding the stone. Once Quirrelmort discovers that Harry Potter is at Hogwarts, he renews his attempts on Harry's life. Whether or not Snape's hatred of Harry is real or an elaborate plot, he isn't about to let Harry die. His hatred seems much more petty than that. This behavior continues throughout the series: Snape always maintains a distinct dislike for Harry during times of relative peace, but any time Harry's life is in danger, he attempts a rescue (and I include the end of PoA in the latter category; that Snape was mistaken is irrelevant). All in all, Snape seems to have much more important reasons to save Harry than some childhood life-debt. That Dumbledore didn't go into detail about Snape's role in the fight against Voldemort in Harry's first year seems perfectly normal, especially considering that by Harry's fourth year, he still does not know Snape's full role. -Corinth>>> If Snape was working for Dumbledore in SS, then I'm really confused as to why he didn't tell Dumbledore that Quirrelmort was after the stone. and if he did tell Dumbledore, why wasn't Quirrelmort "removed" from his teaching position and punished/inprisoned/killed? I understand that Dumbledore gave Harry the choice of facing Quirrelmort, but was that worth the chance that Quirrelmort would get the stone and achieve immortallity? Unless the stone was a fake, and the real one is still out there, but everyone is ignoring it now since it they all think it's destroyed. Hmmmm..... Marc ________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 bboy_mn at yahoo.com Thu Aug 8 21:23:53 2002 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (bboy_mn) Date: Thu, 08 Aug 2002 21:23:53 -0000 Subject: The night the Potters died & where are their graves In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42323 Regarding Cremation- --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Michele Kerby" wrote: > Richelle writes: > > >What if in fact the house did blow up? Their bodies could've > >gone with it. Presuming they were both in the house at the time > >of death. If not, maybe all wizards are cremated? Sort of a > >Jedi thing? Or too Star Wars perhaps. > >:) > > Michele Replied: > On another list I belong to an Anglican priest, who lives in England, wrote that in his country nowadays cremations are much more common than burials. Perhaps JKR thought her readers would assumed they were cremated? > > Michele Kerby bboy_mn comments: On the subject of Cremation in general. Just because someone is cremetated, that doesn't mean no memorial site or grave-equvalent exists. These could be in a crypt of some type where dozens of peoples bodies could be stored in a small room. So even if Harry's parents were cremated, there 'bodies' are still 'buried' somewhere, and I would think that at some point Harry would want to go pay his respects. bboy_mn From crana at ntlworld.com Thu Aug 8 21:30:03 2002 From: crana at ntlworld.com (rosie) Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2002 22:30:03 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Weasley family ages References: Message-ID: <006e01c23f22$c2bb7be0$a1b068d5@xxx> No: HPFGUIDX 42324 Phyllis wrote: "I'm probably being too simplistic, but my understanding is that JKR modeled the character of Ron Weasley after a good friend of hers named Shawn (or Sean, I can't remember how it's spelled, but she dedicates CoS to him and he owns (owned?) a Ford Anglia). So I always assumed that she just picked a name that rhymed with "Shawn." That being said, I think it's clear that JKR bases a lot of her names on historical persons and places, so it's entirely possible that the names of the Weasley family members are based on English history." Ok, I'm not sure how these are pronounced if you are American or of another nationality, but here in the UK, Sean/Shaun/Shawn does not really rhyme with Ron. It's kind of Shooor-n versus Ronn - A long vowel sound versus a short vowel sound. I can see how these could be pronounced differently to make them rhyme but in a British accent, they don't really rhyme. Interesting theory nonetheless Rosie 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 pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk Thu Aug 8 21:31:58 2002 From: pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk (bluesqueak) Date: Thu, 08 Aug 2002 21:31:58 -0000 Subject: Is Diary Riddle Voldemort?/Summoning by name In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42325 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "erisedstraeh2002" wrote: > > Help! This makes me very confused, probably because I'm a newbie, > but how can Diary!Riddle be a "different being" than Voldemort! > Riddle? I always thought of them as one and the same, since in > CoS, Voldemort is only spirit, and has to embody another being in > order to be seen be others. I thought of Diary!Riddle as a way > Voldemort's spirit was able to be seen to others, through the > memory of Riddle. When Harry plunges the basilisk fang into the > diary and Riddle disappears, I thought that Voldemort's spirit then > returned to Albania. > > Plus, while JKR references him as "Riddle" during the encounter > with Harry in the Chamber, there is one instance where she > writes "*Voldemort* was laughing." Just a typo? Or is she trying > to tell us that Riddle's memory really was embodying Voldemort? > > Any clarification would be most appreciated! > > Cheers, > Phyllis The sixteen year old Riddle was already calling himself 'Lord Voldemort' - so JKR calling him 'Voldemort' is no typo. My own notion is that 'Tom Riddle' from the Diary is a spell construct with exactly the same memories and personality of the sixteen year old 'Lord Voldemort'. But it isn't really alive - that's why it needs to suck the life force out of Ginny and nearly kills her. If you like, it's a sort of 'spell clone'. Diary Riddle only knows what the sixteen year old Voldemort knew, and what he could find out from Ginny. Whether Voldemort can tell what's happening to his 'spell clone' when the Diary is activated is extremely debateable. I think that Lucius Malfoy planted the Diary on the orders of the REAL Lord Voldemort, hiding in Albania, but that's another theory [grin] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Jean says: > So, why would muggle borns (i.e. Hermione) be afraid to > use the name?? And Felinia replies: > the second is a more arcane sense that has hung about many magical > and mystical traditions, that to say the name of a being or thing, > or to chant or intone it, is to call or invoke the presence of same. > I think that is what is at work here. Not that arcane - the proverb "Speak of the devil and he arrives." is still much used in Britain. People quote it semi-jokingly when they name a person and that person then unexpectedly turns up. So Hermione probably wouldn't see the idea of 'summoning' Voldemort by speaking his name aloud as a strange or arcane idea. Pip From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Thu Aug 8 21:47:49 2002 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (bboy_mn) Date: Thu, 08 Aug 2002 21:47:49 -0000 Subject: The use of the name Voldemort - Invoking In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42326 . ** scrowl down for message ** . . . . . . . scrowl down for message . . . . . . . Jean's comments: --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Jesta Hijinx" wrote: > >I couldn't see this on the VFAQ, so excuse me if it's in there. > > > >My friend and I were wondering about the use (or lack, there of) > >of the name Voldemort. Now, wizards and witches don't say the name > > because they are afraid of it etc. So, why would muggle borns > >(i.e. Hermione) be afraid to use the name?? In the books, it is > >only Dumbledore and Harry (mostly) that call him Voldemort. It > > doens't make sense. > > > >And doesn't the insistence of Wizards of not saying his name, > >incite a fear that isn't there? If they weren't scared of > >Voldemort, perhaps he wouldn't be so powerful. > > > >Just our little thoughts, would like to hear yours :-) > > > >Jean > > Felinia responds to Jean: > Hi Jean and all - > > My thoughts about this is that, even in our culture, words can > be a very powerful weapon. > > Think of the kneejerk reactions a term like "Nazi" provokes. > > That's one. > > the second is a more arcane sense that has hung about many > magical and mystical traditions, that to say the name of a being > or thing, or to chant or intone it, is to call or invoke the > presence of same. > > I think that is what is at work here. > > Felinia > bboy_mn responds to all: RE: Being afraid of the name just gives it power (incites the fear.) Jean, you are right about this, and that's exactly what Dumbledore tells Harry. Not speaking the name continues to instill the name and the person with apparent power that may not really be there or power that is only preceived because of the individuals own fear. RE: Muggles and 'Voldemort'. Hermione doesn't speak the name out of sensitivity for here magic friends. She knows it upsets them, and to prevent this, has gotten in the habit of not saying it. RE: To speak the Devil's name is to call him to you. I agree with Felina, we are dealing with people who are well aware that there is tremendous power in invoking certain words. Even in our distant Christian culture, speaking the devils name was forbidden, because to speak his name is to call him to you. In fact, in most fictional, or mythical accounts of conjuring the devil or calling him to you side; it is done by repeatedly (usually 3 or 7 times) calling the devil by name (by one of his many names). In magic, there is also intent, magic words can't invoke magic (usually) if there is not intended to invoke that magic. For example, you could have an intellectual conversation about the Avada Kadavra killing curse and people could say the name repeatedly and nothing should happen. But I suspect wizards avoid saying 'Avada Kadavra' in casual conversation, the same as any reasonable person avoids pointing a loaded gun at someone. Even, in the example of the loaded gun, if you have no intent to shoot anyone, the margin for error is too slim to take a chance. One mistake can be fatal. So just as any reasonable person avoids pointing a loaded gun at anyone, reasonable wizards avoid saying 'Avada Kadavra', and as a reasonable precaution against inviting Voldemort to join you, people avoid saying his name. Just some thoughts bboy_mn From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Thu Aug 8 22:45:10 2002 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (bboy_mn) Date: Thu, 08 Aug 2002 22:45:10 -0000 Subject: More on Snape, Pettigrew and Spying (post-Voldy) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42327 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "elvishooked" wrote: > Its not that I wish to stand out as the fool here - but I STILL don't > understand why Pettigrew would have reason to fear the DE's. > > Jodel explained: > > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., jodel at a... wrote: > > << he had led > Voldemort into a trap. (The DE's do not tolerate mistakes which > "inconvenience" them.)>>> > Inge Replied: > What trap? Pettigrew had no way of knowing that Voldemort would fail > that night. The DE's must have known that it wasn't Pettigrew's fault > that things went wrong. Why would they be after him instead of help > hide and protect him after Sirius was sent to Azkaban? > > Well - maybe it's just me - but I just don't get it. > > Inge bboy_mn replies: "The DE's must have known that it wasn't Pettigrew's fault ..." Why must they have known that? All they knew is that Pettigrew send Voldemort to his doom when he sent him to the Potter's. Voldemort operates on a need to know basis. When you are a psychotic megalomaniacal dictator, you control information very closely. The DE's knew very little of the details, and the only ones who knew anything were the ones who had a need to know. It seems clear from the story that Sirius assesment of Pettigrew was right, he wasn't hiding from Sirius/Remus, he was hiding from the DE's. They DE's don't forgive mistakes, even when they are just that 'mistakes'. Pettigrew's information lead driectly to Voldemort's distruction, and they would certainly not forgive or forget that. bboy_mn From xp39c at yahoo.com Fri Aug 9 00:01:21 2002 From: xp39c at yahoo.com (xp39c) Date: Fri, 09 Aug 2002 00:01:21 -0000 Subject: The Fateful Night (VERY long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42328 pippin wrote: > Sirius, in his account of events at the Shrieking Shack, does not > mention Hagrid, or the motorbike, or trying to take Harry with him. > I maintain that we cannot state as fact that the person Hagrid > met at Godric's Hollow was Sirius. > IMO, it is much more likely to have been polyjuiced Pettigrew. It is > hard for me to understand why Sirius would have wanted to take > Harry with him if he was a) overwhelmed with grief for the Potters > b) bent on finding Peter and c) knew that Dumbledore was taking > personal responsibility for Harry's safety. I find it hard to believe > that the real Sirius would have argued against Dumbledore's > orders with Hagrid. It was Fake!Moody's disregard of > Dumbledore's orders that finally tipped Dumbledore off to his > disguise. I think that's a clue. Why would it be in Pettigew's plan to use Polyjuice to turn into Black? His and Voldemort's plan was to find the Potters, kill them, then probably have Pettigew frame Black. If they had succeeded, Pettigew would have waited until word of the Potters' deaths had spread, then go immediately to the MOM as a witness that Black was the secret keeper. If Pettigew had really been there with Hagrid, and he wanted to take Harry, which I doubt, he could have just AK'ed Hagrid to get him out of the way. Pettigew might be much smaller than Hagrid, but he's much more magically powerful than Hagrid is. --Hei Lun From rpquate at earthlink.net Thu Aug 8 23:05:47 2002 From: rpquate at earthlink.net (redandgoldlion) Date: Thu, 08 Aug 2002 23:05:47 -0000 Subject: Fawkes/Phoenixes/Dumbledore/ Gryffindor In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42329 "Constance Vigilance" wrote: > It wouldn't surprise me at all if Dumbledore is an animagus, but my > money is on a bumblebee. "Dumbledore" means bumblebee in obsolete > English. We heard Dumbledore say that there are other ways of > appearing invisible. Such as becoming very small, perhaps? > > Also, I think JKR's reasoning that she picked the name because she > envisioned Dumbledore humming to himself sounds pretty lame...I think she picked the name for another reason but didn't want to spoil the story by telling us. > > Anyway, that's why I think he's a bug. Hmm...a bumblebee. I hadn't thought of that. I think the idea is well thought out, but I always pictured him being a more worthy creature. Aren't the animals wizards turn into suppose to represent their nature (wormtail *is* very rat-like). If he is a bug, it would link him to closely to Rita Skeeter in my mind for my liking. It would make it hard to see him, though; that's a *very* good point. I think he is an animagus, but I prefer to believe he is a nobler creature. Thanks for something else to think about. :-) ~redandgoldlion~ From msn.tsf at hccnet.nl Thu Aug 8 23:11:30 2002 From: msn.tsf at hccnet.nl (Yoris) Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2002 01:11:30 +0200 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Fate and Choices References: Message-ID: <002101c23f30$ee5dcce0$9600000a@newpc> No: HPFGUIDX 42330 Nicole, who had fun deconstructing Voldemort, said: > I think this is where the choices come into play. Canon tells us > that when Voldemort was in school, he was Tom Riddle, a handsome, > talented, and high-performing student. I think that he may have once > been a very different person from what he was but that, as he grew > older, he grew more and more bitter. His father's abandonment > obviously affected him greatly and I think that getting his revenge > became a kind of obsession to him that made the Dark Arts look very > appealing. If he were to become a powerful Dark wizard, he could > certainly show his father that he is not insignificant, that he is > not some piece of trash to be discarded. I'm inclined to believe > that this was his first motive in his quest for power. Adopting the > title of "lord" is another indication of this. By giving himself > this honorific title, it's like he's trying to rise above his real > situation. He hungers to be seen as important and what better way to > gain importance than by giving himself a title, gaining power, and > using that power to oppress others? He certainly cannot be ignored > then. Then, in the tradition of many power-hungry beings, he found > that once he killed his father and grandparents, he hungered for > more. The more power he got, the more he craved. > > How does all this relate to the Fawkes wand choosing him? I think > that when he was 11, he may have been just as good a kid as Harry > was. If this is true, it makes sense to me that the wand with > Fawkes's tail feather in it would have chosen him. However, unlike > Harry, he allows his latent anger over his childhood to overtake him > and, ultimately, he chooses to take his intelligence and power and > use it for evil purposes. It's not necessarily that anyone is > predestined to be chosen by a particular wand. Rather, I think the > wand is something like Sorting Hat in that it reads what is within > that person and makes its choice accordingly. I think that when > Riddle points out his similarities to Harry, he is hinting at what > Harry could become if Harry makes the same choices that he, Riddle, > made. > I think harry could easily have become like voldemort having all the same problems and dillemma's but that the current situation changed it because: -when voldemort was young dark forces probably were less know, less used, and thus less feared and less thought of as evil, if harry had gone evil everyone would have immeadiathly try to change his course in the good way, but in voldemorts time they probably didn't see the bad of it. -when voldemort was sorted he was naturally sorted into slytherin because of his ambition, later when harry got sorted harry was about to get sorted in slytherin, only he didn't because he didn't want to be like voldemort/malfoy. Voldemort didn't have an example of the evilness of evil :) like harry, who faered becoming like voldemort, if voldemort would have had an big example of an evil wizzard he would probably have taken the same course as harry is taking now. "Yoris" From millergal8 at aol.com Fri Aug 9 00:13:03 2002 From: millergal8 at aol.com (millergal8 at aol.com) Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2002 20:13:03 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Fidelius charm? Message-ID: <4b.216b686a.2a84630f@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 42331 In a message dated 8/8/02 6:51:04 AM Pacific Daylight Time, eloiseherisson at aol.com writes: << This is a *big* problem, especially as Dumbledore suspected a mole in the organisation already. It adds a layer of complication in having to add the "untrustworthy parties" clause, which I don't like. It also means that it would have to somehow prevent those in the know from divulging the secret (under torture, or whatever), or those who got the information from them from understanding the answer. >> I personally agree with Aloha. I believe that the Fidelius charm would hide the Potters only from people with evil intent. In PoA Flitwick tells Madam Rosmerta, "As long as the Secret-Keeper refused to speak, You-Know-Who could search the village where Lily and James were staying for years and never find them." Now why did he specifically mention Voldemort? For example, why not say "anyone could search the village..." As for the part of keeping those who do know from revealing the location, Flitwick says that the _secret keeper_ has to keep quiet, which leads me to the assumption that ONLY the secret keeper can show the way to the house. Even if Voldemort saw Black or someone else going to the village, he would STILL not be able to see the Potters. What I don't understand is if Black was so worried about Voldemort finding the Potters that he convinced them to switch, why choose Peter, why not go back to the original plan and choose Dumbledore? Christy- who would probably rather die than be protected by a Fidelius Charm if it meant she couldn't associate with society for a LONG time. From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Aug 9 01:16:26 2002 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 09 Aug 2002 01:16:26 -0000 Subject: The Fateful Night (VERY long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42332 I said: > IMO, it is much more likely to have been polyjuiced Pettigrew. It is hard for me to understand why Sirius would have wanted to take Harry with him if he was a) overwhelmed with grief for the Potters b) bent on finding Peter and c) knew that Dumbledore was taking personal responsibility for Harry's safety. I find it hard to believe that the real Sirius would have argued against Dumbledore's orders with Hagrid.> Jenny: >>Polyjuiced Pettigrew? I find that one hard to swallow :-). I imagine that Pettigrew spent all of his time and energy dealing with Voldemort, setting the Potters up, and then setting Sirius up as well. I just don't see him sitting down and taking the time to make and take Polyjuice Potion on top of that. Polyjuice Potion takes time to take effect and to wear off; Pettigrew was too pressed for time to go through all of that.<< Me: Pettigrew wouldn't have had to make up the potion himself. I expect Snape spent a lot of time brewing up cauldronsfull of the stuff for Voldemort. All Peter would have had to do was add some of Sirius' hair to the ready-made potion and drink it...a matter of moments. I believe that framing Sirius as the spy was always a part of Pettigrew/Voldemort's plan. The secret keeper switch just made it easier. Peter could have stolen the motorcycle from wherever Sirius had it hidden. Fudge tells he believes there was a plan for (Fake!)Sirius to openly declare his allegiance to Voldemort at the time of the Potter's deaths. It would have been part of this plan for Sirius to be spotted at the scene of the crime. When Voldemort disappeared, Peter was caught short by Hagrid's arrival. Peter needed to get his hands on Harry to prove to the other Death Eaters that he didn't set Voldemort up. Sirius says something in the shack about that being the only way that Pettigrew could have proved that he didn't plot Voldemort's downfall. Jenny: >>I can also see Sirius himself arguing with Hagrid because I can imagine that, after seeing the Potters' home destroyed and Pettigrew nowhere to be found, Sirius would have trouble trusting anyone, especially someone coming to him and saying "Dumbledore told me to..." I'd be suspicious as well. Besides, in the end, Sirius did let Hagrid take Harry, right? He was simply reluctant to do so.<< me: Presumably Sirius, as part of the Old Crowd, knew that Dumbledore would trust Hagrid with his life. Also, we know how rough Hagrid can be. I don't think Peter would have had the nerve to do more than argue with him. Peter couldn't stick around for long or he would have had to drink more potion, which would have looked suspicious. Or the real Sirius might have shown up, which I think happened, *after* Hagrid and Fake!Sirius left. If the the bodies of James and Lily were found after Hagrid's departure, it would explain why McGonagall, who went immediately to Privet Drive without waiting for further news, still had some hope that J & L weren't dead. Hei Lun : >>If Pettigew had really been there with Hagrid, and he wanted to take Harry, which I doubt, he could have just AK'ed Hagrid to get him out of the way. Pettigew might be much smaller than Hagrid, but he's much more magically powerful than Hagrid is.<< me: Pettigrew is a coward. He won't fight unless he is cornered, and, as Sirius says, he wouldn't commit murder unless he was sure he had a powerful protector. I am sure that Harry will find clearing Sirius will not be as simple as just showing up with Pettigrew dead or alive, especially if I am right and there is still a yet-to-be unmasked traitor/spy among the Old Crowd. Sirius might find himself facing renewed suspicion, which is why I think all this is relevant. Pippin From bard7696 at aol.com Fri Aug 9 02:43:15 2002 From: bard7696 at aol.com (darrin_burnett) Date: Fri, 09 Aug 2002 02:43:15 -0000 Subject: The benefits of metathinking Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42333 I realize metathinking is a bit of a dirty word, but let me speak in favor of it. There have been a lot of great theories floated the last few days, especially regarding the night James and Lily died. And the MAGIC DISHWASHER theory still pokes its head up from time to time. Canon can be interpreted in many different ways, especially when it comes to events such as the night James and Lily were killed and what Snape knew, when he turned and why. So, we are left with a bunch of different theories, each plausible and each fitting with what we know about characters. It works for Sirius to really be Sirius or for Sirius to be a Polyjuiced Pettigrew, for example. It works for Snape to have been in love with Lily or in a life debt to James. Or both. Even the DISHWASHER, in all its glory, works. So we are left with what makes a good story. I disapprove of DISHWASHER not because it doesn't work, but because I do not want to see a tortured, ambigious character like Snape become cleaner, which is what happens. The whole idea that he is able to operate on six different mental levels WHILE pretending to be so furious he can't see straight cheapens, not strengthens the character. It takes away what makes him so interesting -- he's a tragic and heroic figure who hates most of the people he's fighting with and truly despises the boy who he knows will probably be the linchpin in his battle. In fact, I'd go further. I'd love the idea of him wanting nothing more than to go back to the early days of the DE life, before whatever life-changing experience he suffered made him turn. That was a good time to him, I'd like to think, but he knows he can never go bac. But to have the anger be an act takes the interest out of the character. Likewise, canon surely supports the notion that Lily had help creating this sacrifice thing, but the image of Dumbledore (or worse, Snape) and Lily hammering this thing out is just ... wrong... to the story, IMHO. What makes the sacrifice so poignant is the idea of the suddeness of it, the almost instinctual desire for Lily to protect her son. It is a better story to have what she did unaltered as possible by the machinations of Dumbledore, which frankly, takes the focus away from Harry. He becomes a pawn in a giant game between D-Dore and V- Mort, INSTEAD of the wild card who changed the game completely, surprising both sides. By having D-Dore engineer the thing, or at least partially do so, HE becomes the true epicenter of the story, not Harry. Unacceptable. A little metathinking goes a long way. Darrin -- Just Metathink From boggles at earthlink.net Fri Aug 9 02:49:37 2002 From: boggles at earthlink.net (Jennifer Boggess Ramon) Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2002 21:49:37 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: "It wuz Snape" / That Fateful Night In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42334 At 9:16 PM -0400 8/6/02, Ian Malone wrote: > >A. Why did the Potter's house collapse? It has been established that AK >cannot blow a house to pieces. Yes, but this AK did something no other recorded AK had ever done before - it ricocheted off of the intended victim and discorporated the caster. If even a small ammount of Voldemort's mass was converted to energy in the discorporation, that would be sufficient to bring the house down. Presumably whatever protected baby!Harry from the Avada Kedavra in the first place also protected him from the aftereffects, other than the curse scar itself. Much as I like "It wuz Snape," it seems to me that wizards have investigative tools to find out what happened that are far better than Muggle ones. They could certainly Prior Incantato both James and Lily's wands; perhaps they could cast the speaking-mirror enchantment on whatever fragments of mirror were left and ask them what they saw (or, if James and Lily weren't entirely living as Muggles in the privacy of their home, the mirrors might already have the enchantment). I would suspect that they have an investigative spell that acts like psychometry - perhaps it's part of the Divination curriculum - but as it's a Yellow Flag, I don't think we *need* it. At 7:50 PM +0000 8/7/02, grey_wolf_c wrote: >Where does it say that Voldermort has no soul? Right there in that >quote you gracefully included (thanks for not making me translate it!), >but it's just a matter of interpretation. I've always understood that >"Dunno if he had enough human left in him to die" meant that he had >become so totally evil that his soul had been tarnished to the point he >could not be considered a human being anymore. Hmm. I've always interpreted that precisely the opposite way: his dark magics and dabblings in Things Wizards Were Not Meant To Dabble In had irrevocably changed and twisted his body, and only the obsidian spark of his soul still connected him to his humanity. This might be why he pays so little attention to what his old body consisted of when he brews up his new one, omitting the bone/blood/flesh of his mother - there wasn't much of that left in his previous one, anyhow. -- - 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 r_galaxy at hotmail.com Fri Aug 9 04:07:40 2002 From: r_galaxy at hotmail.com (galaxylei) Date: Fri, 09 Aug 2002 04:07:40 -0000 Subject: Wizard Photographs Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42335 (I don't think this subject has been covered; if it has, sorry) We know from the books that the people in magical photographs move. What is it about the pictures that allow this to happen? Do they capture a bit of the person when they're taken, or a short time span? Also, once a person is in a picture, does that picture of them take on sort of a life of it's own--will it change its personality based on where the photograph is kept or how it's treated? What happens if the photograph gets cut up, to make a collage or something? (Do wizards just not do that?) Would it hurt the people in the picture? -GalaxyLei (first post here btw, hi!) From yrawen at ontheqt.org Fri Aug 9 04:52:23 2002 From: yrawen at ontheqt.org (yr awen) Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2002 00:52:23 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Wizard Photographs References: Message-ID: <004401c23f60$8d665760$68f0f718@kzo.chartermi.net> No: HPFGUIDX 42336 GalaxyLei wondered: We know from the books that the people in magical photographs move. What is it about the pictures that allow this to happen? Do they capture a bit of the person when they're taken, or a short time span?<<<<<<<<< In CoS, which I don't have with me because my sister *stole* it (argh! Siblings!) I believe Colin tells Harry that a friend of his told him that, if he develops his film in a particular solution (read: potion), the resulting photographs will move. I'm assuming, therefore, that the potion works on all sorts of regular Muggle film and doesn't require special 'wizarding' film in order to work. The photos seem to take on the personality of their subjects. Lockhart's photos all wink and grin cheekily, for example. When Percy's photo of Penelope gets splashed with tea (PoA, I believe, early on), she hides her face under the frame out of embarrassment because her nose has this huge tea stain on it. Back in CoS, when Harry sees the picture Colin attempts to take of Lockhart and him together, he's relieved that his photograph is refusing to be dragged into view by Lockhart, who eventually gives up :-) Also, once a person is in a picture, does that picture of them take on sort of a life of it's own--will it change its personality based on where the photograph is kept or how it's treated? What happens if the photograph gets cut up, to make a collage or something? (Do wizards just not do that?) Would it hurt the people in the picture?<<<<<<<< Hm... that's a good question! I would have to guess, based on what happens to the Fat Lady's painting in PoA when Sirius shreds it, is that damage wouldn't necessarily 'hurt' a photo -- the Fat Lady doesn't bleed to death or anything, but she does sustain damage to the point that she needs to be restored. As for 'personality changes,' I guess that's probably up to the realm of speculation. That means I'm going to see what everyone else says HF. 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 purpleangelstar7 at yahoo.com Fri Aug 9 03:37:03 2002 From: purpleangelstar7 at yahoo.com (bluemoonnarnia) Date: Fri, 09 Aug 2002 03:37:03 -0000 Subject: Memories (WAS: "It wuz Snape" / That Fateful Night) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42337 --- In HPforGrownups at y...,At 9:16 PM -0400 8/6/02, Ian Malone wrote: >Snip< > Much as I like "It wuz Snape," it seems to me that wizards have > investigative tools to find out what happened that are far better > than Muggle ones. They could certainly Prior Incantato both James > and Lily's wands; perhaps they could cast the speaking-mirror > enchantment on whatever fragments of mirror were left and ask them > what they saw (or, if James and Lily weren't entirely living as > Muggles in the privacy of their home, the mirrors might already have > the enchantment). I would suspect that they have an investigative > spell that acts like psychometry - perhaps it's part of the > Divination curriculum - but as it's a Yellow Flag, I don't think we > *need* it. >Snip< Now it's my turn. I'm new to posting on the list, so hopefully my theory isn't shamefully bad. Anyway, when I read this post, the most interesting thing just popped into my head. Why can't they use the pensieve on Harry to siphon out the memories he must harbor of the actions on that night? He had to see something, although he can only remember when Dementors are around, his mother screaming and evil laughter and a greenish light when he tries to remember that night. If he took out the thought and put it in the pensieve we might get a better idea on what happen to Lily&James, and most important to see what happened as the curse hit Voldemort and the house? We could also solve who was there when Harry got rescued and were Hagrid went during that missing 24 hours. The only problem with this theory is that maybe you have to actually remember what happen in order to put it in the pensieve. Other than that, I think it could be the final answer into solving the mystery short of asking Voldemort or Lily&James themselves. Bluemoonnarnia(Who really hopes this is a good theory :) From kellybroughton at yahoo.com Fri Aug 9 05:28:04 2002 From: kellybroughton at yahoo.com (kelly broughton) Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2002 22:28:04 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Memories (WAS: "It wuz Snape" / That Fateful Night) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020809052804.87874.qmail@web21101.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 42338 --- bluemoonnarnia wrote: > Now it's my turn. I'm new to posting on the list, so hopefully my > theory isn't shamefully bad. Anyway, when I read this post, the most > interesting thing just popped into my head. Why can't they use the > pensieve on Harry to siphon out the memories he must harbor of the > actions on that night? He had to see something, although he can only > remember when Dementors are around, his mother screaming and evil > laughter and a greenish light when he tries to remember that night. > If he took out the thought and put it in the pensieve we might get a > better idea on what happen to Lily&James, and most important to see > what happened as the curse hit Voldemort and the house? We could also > solve who was there when Harry got rescued and were Hagrid went > during that missing 24 hours. The only problem with this theory is > that maybe you have to actually remember what happen in order to put > it in the pensieve. Other than that, I think it could be the final > answer into solving the mystery short of asking Voldemort or > Lily&James themselves. > What if Harry cannot remember anything not just bc of his young age and/or the trauma the incident must have caused, but also bc somebody (Dumbledore?) put a memory charm on him? Surely somebody doctored his head injury... if so, who? Hagrid was gone for 24 hours. Did he take Harry to get medical and/or memory treatment of any sort? -kel __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? HotJobs - Search Thousands of New Jobs http://www.hotjobs.com From fyredriftwood at yahoo.com Fri Aug 9 07:02:28 2002 From: fyredriftwood at yahoo.com (fyredriftwood) Date: Fri, 09 Aug 2002 07:02:28 -0000 Subject: Wizard Photographs and magical marge In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42339 This topic was started by galaxylei who brought up the following point: > We know from the books that the people in magical photographs move. > What is it about the pictures that allow this to happen? Do they > capture a bit of the person when they're taken, or a short time span? > > Also, once a person is in a picture, does that picture of them take on > sort of a life of it's own--will it change its personality based on > where the photograph is kept or how it's treated? What happens if the > photograph gets cut up, to make a collage or something? (Do wizards > just not do that?) Would it hurt the people in the picture? Okay, my thoughts: Wow, you definately go into great detail about this sort of thing.. something I have never thought about. I think the photos take on a few traits of the people they are taken of. Just look at the way Photo!Harry reacts in the photo that Colin took of him with Lockhart. Gilderoy is just trying to make Harry come into the picture, but Harry doesn't want to.... remind you of real life Harry Potter doesn't it? My guess is that the photos are merely echos of the people they represent. I doubt they are "real" or would feel any pain if they were cut. Though.. voodu photos would be an interesting idea >=) ______________ There was debate between Darrin (who is brilliant, btw) and a few other posters regarding the "magic in later life" possibility. Darrin came up with the best idea and that's why I am citing him. Here's my thoughts: Magical Marge??? Uh... Nope. I'm surprised that no one has yet to think that it will be Dudley Dursley or has gone into detail about it. Think about it: How would the Dursleys react to their own son being a wizard? That would be the icing on the cake =) As soon as I read the quote about someone receiving magical power late in life, I had to assume it would be Dudley. The Dursleys hate magic and it would be funny to see their reaction to that. Any thoughts? --Fyre Wood From pennylin at swbell.net Fri Aug 9 12:17:46 2002 From: pennylin at swbell.net (Penny Linsenmayer) Date: Fri, 09 Aug 2002 07:17:46 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Weasley family ages References: Message-ID: <012201c23f9e$c59cde90$4f5ffea9@cq5hs01> No: HPFGUIDX 42340 Hi -- I realize I'm a little late in responding to this, but better late than never. There is a FAQ for the Weasley Family (written by Simon), though for reasons unknown to me, it's never been uploaded. ::: looks meaningfully at the techie people:::: Anyway, I'm going to cut & paste the section from the Word version of that FAQ below, as I think it might aid in current discussions on this topic. It's long, and it's probably outdated to some extent (as it was written in July 2001 and I know we've had some interesting theories or thoughts on this topic since then). But, it's hopefully a help all the same. It's cut & pasted below my signature. Penny How old are Molly and Arthur? [i] While Molly and son Bill Weasley were reminiscing of their times at Hogwarts [ii], Molly remarks that Hagrid was not the gamekeeper while she and Arthur were at the school. Molly also says that the Whomping Willow was planted after her time at the school. This indicates that Molly and Arthur are definitely more than 7 years older than the Marauders. A good estimate would be that they are in their late 40s or early 50s. How old are the children? [iii] In PS/SS, we know the younger 5 children are: Percy - 15 Fred and George - 13 Ron - 11 Ginny - 10 How old are Charlie and Bill? "If they won their next match, against Hufflepuff, they would overtake Slytherin in the House Championship for the first time in seven years." [iv] "And Potter - do try and win, won't you? Or we'll be out of the running for the eighth year in a row..." [v] "Gryffindor hadn't won the Quidditch Cup since the legendary Charlie Weasley had been Seeker." [vi] "I've looked forward to coming to Hogwarts ever since B-Bill came." [vii] "It's great being back here. Haven't seen this place in five years." [viii] These quotes have lead group member to form two possibilities for the ages of Bill and Charlie. Neither answer seems totally satisfactory, but this is a subject, that until the author gives us an answer, will keep on surfacing. [ix] Since we know that Charlie and Bill are not twins, it seems safe to assume there is at least a one-year age gap between the two of them. Case 1: Bill is 20 and Charlie 19 [x]. For: Bill says he was last at Hogwarts five years previous to GoF. Therefore, this can be assumed to be when he finished his schooling. In this case, Ginny would have been 2 when Bill started at Hogwarts and so could remember him starting at Hogwarts. Against: Gryffindor last won the Quidditch Cup when Charlie was seeker, which was seven years before the events of PoA. According to this timeline, Charlie would have been at least a second year student at Hogwarts since Harry was the youngest player for a century according to PS/SS (evidence that Charlie started Quidditch in his second year, or later). But why, if he was such a great player, did the team only win in this one year? We can rule out him only playing for the one year as Oliver Wood saw him play [xi] and Wood did not start at Hogwarts until a couple of years after this. Case 2: Bill is 24 (or older) and Charlie 23 [xii]. For: Gryffindor would have won the Quidditch Cup in Charlie's last year and maybe several years before that. Against: Ginny would have been at most three when Bill finished Hogwarts. How can she remember him starting if she wasn't even born? This could be countered by assuming she in fact meant that she had wanted to go to Hogwarts ever since she can remember Bill being at Hogwarts, not necessarily his first year. However, why was Bill last at Hogwarts five years ago if he finished schooling there 10, or more, years previously? One might assume that Bill came back for some alumni event after he had finished or that he came back to give career talks to the students. Why the large age gap between Charlie and Percy?[xiii] The ages leave the Weasley children as having births about 2 years apart (taking the twins as one) but with the anomaly of either an age gap of four or eight+ years between the births of Charlie and Percy. This led the group to discuss reasons why the Weasley family have no children to fill this gap. It is worth noting that Percy, Fred, George, Ron and Ginny were all born during the last few years, and the most potent years, of Voldemort's reign. Members have put forth several explanations for this gap in the family. One theory holds that Molly and Arthur decided at the beginning of Voldemort's reign to have no more children until after the struggles had finished. Then, unexpectedly, Percy was conceived at which point they decided to have more children. Another theory suggests that Molly decided, after many years of looking after Charlie and Bill, that she also wanted a daughter and so tried for a few more times to have a girl, first getting Percy, Fred, George and Ron, before finally stopping after Ginny was born. Another possibility is that Molly and Arthur split up, but then later reconciled and had more children. Or, Arthur, or maybe even Molly, was away from home for long periods of time due to his/her career. Yet another possibility put forth is that Molly and Arthur were just unlucky for several years. It is also possible that Molly is in fact older than we are lead to believe. After having Charlie she thinks there is no chance of getting pregnant again and Percy is a surprise. After Percy's birth, Molly and Arthur decided to try for more children. One of the more intriguing possibilities is that there was one or more children born between Charlie and Percy but they all died before birth or during the first few years of their lives. Molly and Arthur might not discuss these children and so the younger children know nothing about them and hence the reader has never heard about them. This raises interesting possibilities of Ron being the 7th son of a 7th son (assuming, of course, that Arthur was a 7th son himself). Members have also suggested that Voldemort or his Deatheaters killed some of the Weasley family, perhaps even any children born between Charlie and Percy. This seems a strong likelihood when one considers that Arthur has a very clear, and graphic, understanding of the significance of the Dark Mark. It is also possible that Arthur and Molly decided that they did not have enough money to support any more children. This is unlikely though, as there is no good explanation as to why they suddenly had enough money to have children again. Perhaps Molly and Arthur decided to embark on a one-family repopulation drive due to the fact that Voldemort was killing or depleting many wizarding families. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [i] For more information look at the following messages: Yahoo Club 4797 and Yahoo Group 1712, 7879, 7895, 8324 [ii] GoF Ch 31 [iii] Ages at the start of PS [iv] PS Ch 13 [v] McGonagall - PoA Ch 12 [vi] PoA Ch 15 [vii] Ginny - CoS Ch 17 [viii] Bill - GoF Ch 31 [ix] For more information look at the following messages: Yahoo Club 544, 566, 577, 588, 4973, 5343, 5347, 5348, 5349 and Yahoo Group 1666, 1668, 1670, 1673, 1675, 1682, 1714, 1719, 1726, 4518, 4652, 4653, 7879, 7890, 7899, 7926, 7938, 8086, 8988, 8991, 8995 [x] Ages at the start of PS [xi] Wood - PS Ch 10 [xii] Ages at the start of PS [xiii] For more information look at the following messages: Yahoo Club 7045 and Yahoo Group 1666, 1670, 1688, 1694, 1696, 1712, 1717, 1718, 1720, 1728, 1730, 1732 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From meboriqua at aol.com Fri Aug 9 13:15:40 2002 From: meboriqua at aol.com (jenny_ravenclaw) Date: Fri, 09 Aug 2002 13:15:40 -0000 Subject: The Fateful Night (VERY long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42341 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "pippin_999" wrote: > Presumably Sirius, as part of the Old Crowd, knew that > Dumbledore would trust Hagrid with his life.> I still don't buy it. If I was in Sirius's position, and I found two of my best friends murdered, and another best friend having set it all up, I would no longer know who to trust. We know that Sirius suspected Lupin of betraying the Potters, so why would it be unusual for him to suspect Hagrid as well? I suspect Hagrid all the time! Sorry, had to get that one in. > I am sure that Harry will find clearing Sirius will not be as simple > as just showing up with Pettigrew dead or alive, especially if I am > right and there is still a yet-to-be unmasked traitor/spy among > the Old Crowd. Sirius might find himself facing renewed > suspicion, which is why I think all this is relevant.> I agree with you there. It will not be easy to clear Sirius. It has been difficult so far, especially with traitors all over the place and a person such as Fudge in charge of the MOM, denying things that to others are so clear. However, I think the fateful night is not as complicated as people are making it out to be. Pettigrew did not need to use Polyjuice Potion to set Sirius up. Enough members of The Old Crowd were clearly blown apart (figuratively) that night to make the rest of them no longer able to function as a group. Sirius was locked up, Pettigrew got away, Lupin had to go off and live alone, blaming himself and his close friends for what happened, the Potters died, and Arabella Figg was then given the task of watching over Harry. The success of the plan to betray the Potters came when Sirius gave the job of secret keeper to Pettigrew. The rest was a piece of cake. --jenny from ravenclaw ******************************* From eloiseherisson at aol.com Fri Aug 9 13:34:17 2002 From: eloiseherisson at aol.com (eloiseherisson at aol.com) Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2002 09:34:17 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Life-debts/ Fidelius charm?/ Snape and Quirrell Message-ID: <128.15afa160.2a851ed9@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 42342 Inge: > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., eloiseherisson at a... wrote: > > No, the life-debt thing is mentioned by Dumbledore more directly in > PoA after > > Harry regrets sparing Pettigrew's life: > > > > "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." > > > > (PoA, p310, UK paperback) > > > > I think it is in the light of this that many of us read back > Dumbledore's > > words about Snape to imply that he owes a life-debt to James. > > > > Eloise > > > There is a difference between *saving someone's life* and *sparing > someone's life (when you had reason to kill this person but chose not > to)* > Maybe the life debt has to do only with the latter? Eloise: Could be. But in neither case was the person to whom the debt is supposed to be owed actually going to harm the other person *themselves*. James prevented Snape from falling into Sirius' trap and Harry prevented Sirius and Lupin from killing Pettigrew, so I would say the situations were pretty similar. I think it is useful to question this concept, though. As long as I've been a member of this group, it has just been accepted that life-debts exist and Corinth has pointed out the paucity of canonical basis for this belief. Perhaps we have read too much into it. But with honour being seemingly a big wizard thing and things like the binding magical contract that Harry finds himself under by dint of his name coming out of the Goblet of Fire, it wouldn't seem at all surprising if having one's life saved *did* put one under a magical obligation to one's saviour. ............................. Christy: > I personally agree with Aloha. I believe that the Fidelius charm would >hide the Potters only from people with evil intent. In PoA Flitwick tells >Madam Rosmerta, "As long as the Secret-Keeper refused to speak, You-Know-> Who could search the village where Lily and James were staying for years and >never find them." Now why did he specifically mention Voldemort? For >example, why not say "anyone could search the village..." Eloise: Because it's in the context of a conversation about Voldemort murdering the Potters. Also because, as mentioned in that conversation, Dumbledore had information that Voldemort was after them. Christy: As for the part of keeping those who do know from revealing the location, Flitwick says that the _secret keeper_ has to keep quiet, which leads me to the assumption that ONLY the secret keeper can show the way to the house. Even if Voldemort saw Black or someone else going to the village, he would STILL not be able to see the Potters. Eloise: Unquestionably. Christy: What I don't understand is if Black was so worried about Voldemort finding the Potters that he convinced them to switch, why choose Peter, why not go back to the original plan and choose Dumbledore? Eloise: Nor do I, really, beyond the fact that Pettigrew would obviously be the last one to be suspected, so there would be some added safety in choosing the last one likely to be murdered/tortured to break the charm. I can't think that it was to protect Dumbledore in the event of the unknown mole divulging that *he* was the secret-keeper, as Dumbledore must have been a prime target, anyway. ................. BTW, I have noticed a number of posts recently regarding Snape and Quirrell and questioning whether Snape is able to go back to his role as spy. Very recently, Porphyria wrote a comprehensive review of all the evidence regarding this question (post #41072). I do recommend people to read it. Eloise Wishing she'd stayed on holiday. > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From rvotaw at i-55.com Fri Aug 9 15:00:23 2002 From: rvotaw at i-55.com (Richelle Votaw) Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2002 10:00:23 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Fawkes/Phoenixes/Dumbledore/ Gryffindor References: Message-ID: <029101c23fb5$7ddc1140$93a2cdd1@istu757> No: HPFGUIDX 42343 Constance Vigilance writes: > It wouldn't surprise me at all if Dumbledore is an animagus, but my > money is on a bumblebee. "Dumbledore" means bumblebee in obsolete > English. We heard Dumbledore say that there are other ways of > appearing invisible. Such as becoming very small, perhaps? I thought of this yesterday myself. I was looking through my new Latin dictionary, which is quite handy for interpreting Harry Potter, by the way. Anyway, I was considering the fact that Lupin means "pertaining to a wolf" and Sirius is the dogstar. Obviously Lupin transforms into a wolf and Sirius into a dog (a black one at that). Now I could find no connection (yet) between James Potter and a stag and Peter Pettigrew and a rat, though my aunt who hasn't even read Harry Potter is insiting that it's because James Potter is noble and a stag is noble and Pettigrew "just sounds like a rat." Anyway, the name Dumbledore being an old English word for Bumblebee would be so obvious that it's possible to miss the hint entirely! Which we may have done for quite a while. I mean, Dumbledore' GOT to be an animagus, what kind of transformation teacher isn't an animagus? And a bumblebee doesn't seem very noble and dramatic, but it would enable him to slip around to places he normally couldn't (shades of Rita Skeeter the beetle). That could be quite useful. Richelle From rvotaw at i-55.com Fri Aug 9 15:05:36 2002 From: rvotaw at i-55.com (Richelle Votaw) Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2002 10:05:36 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Did Snape have a life debt to James? References: Message-ID: <02a701c23fb6$3822d5c0$93a2cdd1@istu757> No: HPFGUIDX 42344 John McCutcheon writes: > I was wondering what people thought about this. Since James saved > Snape from the Willow tree, did Snape owe James like Pettigrew owes > Harry? Several different people stated James saved Snapes life > throughout a couple of the books. Maybe that's another reason he > hated James. Maybe it's why Dumbledore trusts him. Who knows? Any > thoughts on this would be appreciated, Thanks. I know others have expressed their views on this, but I'll jump in here with mine. Dumbledore did say (in so many words) that Snape owed his life to James, thus wanted to save Harry to repay it and go back to hating James in peace. But here's my view on the matter. *James* saved Snape from Sirius' prank. Not Harry. James is dead. Snape may well have tried to save James from Voldemort by spilling the beans to Dumbledore. But it didn't matter in the long run, Voldemort found them, thanks to Peter, and James died. Snape's life debt to James can *never* be repayed. He's still got it hanging over him. Which I think is why he keeps sticking his neck out to save Harry. I mean basically every time Harry's in a jam Snape shows up. Other show up to (like Dumbledore and McGonagall with Moody/Crouch Jr.) but Snape is there too. He's trying to get that life debt off of his mind, but it keeps hanging there. Saving James son is good, but not the same, since the life debt was to James, not Harry. Richelle From muniloopin at yahoo.com Fri Aug 9 15:02:51 2002 From: muniloopin at yahoo.com (muniloopin) Date: Fri, 09 Aug 2002 15:02:51 -0000 Subject: The Fateful Night (VERY long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42345 jenny from ravenclaw wrote: > We know that Sirius > suspected Lupin of betraying the Potters, so why would it be unusual > for him to suspect Hagrid as well? I suspect Hagrid all the time! Interesting idea. why did sirius suspect remus and not peter? was it because remus is a 'dark creature'? assuming he knew about hagrid's mother, he would then suspect hagrid for the same reason. but I don't like this (my own) argument! Sirius can't be so prejudiced. > Pettigrew did not need to use Polyjuice Potion to set Sirius up. I agree! But I am convinced that peter must have been at godric's hollow. Here is my version of the events of the fateful night: *Godric's Hollow* Voldemort arrives with peter. The potters are revealed, Voldemort kills James, asks Lily to stand aside so that he can kill Harry (why? my theory is that it is a bit too much for a wizard and/or his wand to AK three times in quick sucession...it requires too much effort. Hence, since Harry was the primary target and Lily only a secondary one, she was asked to stand aside), she refuses and is killed. now comes the crucial point: *Voldemort did NOT use his OWN wand to curse Harry*. By her own admission, JKR made a mistake in the Priory Incantatem sequence about the order James and Lily came out but it is very unlikely that she made a mistake about the failed AK also..SOMETHING should have happened that corresponded to the failed AK. I suspect that Voldemort used the wand of the deatheater with him (peter?) to try to kill harry. why? same reason as stated above..it is a bit too much for a wizard and/or his wand to AK three times in quick sucession. ok, so to continue, the curse back-fires, Voldemort is gone, peter takes his own wand and Voldemort's and apparates away. *Hogwarts* The halloween feast is over - Dumbledore comes back to his room and glances at the potter-family-clock (of the kind that molly uses to mintor her own family) and is horrified to see the hand marked "james" go from 'mortal danger' to 'dead'.. before he can fetch his Goderic's-Hollow-port-key (or broom or floo-powder ...since he can not apparate directly from hogwarts) the hand marked "Lily" moves to "Dead" as well but "harry" goes from "mortal danger" to "slightly wounded". Dumbledore sends for Snape and Hagrid as he prepares to port-key himself to Godric's Hollow. Snape rushes in at this moment saying that his dark-mark has been behaving oddly and has finally dissapeared. Realising that this means that Voldemort has gone and guessing the events that took place at GH, he leaves word for Hagrid to use the port-key to collect Harry and to take him by MUGGLE-TRANSPORT to privet drive (hence he fixes the time of meeting at privet drive to 24 hrs. later) and goes off himself to arrange for Harry's safety while at Privet Drive. *Godric's Hollow* Hagrid arrives at GH and is about to walk off with Harry when Sirius appears with his bike. Realising what had happned, Sirius thinks it his duty to look after Harry now and so asks to have him. But when Hagrid explains that Dumbledore has some other plans, he goes after peter instead and Hagrid, now free from the ncessity of usign muggle transport, takes Harry to Wales or where-ever, waits for the appropriate time, meanwhile spreading the news of you-know-who's flight and then takes Harry to Privet Drive. the only interesting points to add here are that (1) after the faking of his own death, peter must have destroyed his own wand (since it could provide evidence against him) but kept Voldemorts (guessing correctly that it might be useful some day). (2) the way fudge behaved after sirius's arrest (no trial, ok, it was crouch who arranged that but fudge, who was the first at the scene, must have given compelling evidence) and at the end of GoF (getting crouch jr. kissed), makes me think that fudge does not want Dumbledore to exchange information with any one who he thinks might have been in the inner circle of voldemort. (3) the fact that dumbledore did not show any reaction when told that Hagrid had met sirius at GH (remember that Dumbledore knew/tought at this point that sirius was the secret-keeper) makes me think that Dumbledore never divulges information unless necessary, even to his intimates. Muniloopin From msiscusack at yahoo.com Fri Aug 9 15:44:38 2002 From: msiscusack at yahoo.com (Kristin Cusack) Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2002 08:44:38 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Pettigrew & hiding + Trelawney & prophecy In-Reply-To: <013001c23e59$408ba420$199ccdd1@istu757> Message-ID: <20020809154438.71063.qmail@web13106.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 42346 > Inge writes: > > > I can understand why Pettigrew had to be in hiding > since he was > > supposedly the dead hero. Why would the DE's have reason to > see Pettigrew as > > their enemy? After all, he did help Voldemort to > get to James and > > Lily and I see no reason why the DE's should not > still trust and > > protect him? Someone tells Harry this in canon...but I forget who...and whre in PoA it happens but the gist is... sure Peter led Voldemort to the Potters; but that is where Voldemort met his demise. He lost his power and the DE's lost their support...without Voldemort they were left to dodge aurors, go to Azkaban, or pretend to be suddenly cured of an Imperious Curse. Harry is told that Peter had to hide for fear that the DE's would think he set Voldemort up for defeat. They will blame Peter for the loss of their leader...so he hides. ~Kristin-there a still about 100 posts in my inbox so if this reply is late or someone else has already answered the same thing...sorry but i haven't seen it yet :) __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? HotJobs - Search Thousands of New Jobs http://www.hotjobs.com From Caliway26 at ns.sympatico.ca Fri Aug 9 16:00:01 2002 From: Caliway26 at ns.sympatico.ca (R. MacDonald) Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2002 13:00:01 -0300 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Wizard Photographs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42347 Fyre Wood wrote: Wow, you definately go into great detail about this sort of thing.. something I have never thought about. I think the photos take on a few traits of the people they are taken of. Just look at the way Photo!Harry reacts in the photo that Colin took of him with Lockhart. Gilderoy is just trying to make Harry come into the picture, but Harry doesn't want to.... remind you of real life Harry Potter doesn't it? My guess is that the photos are merely echos of the people they represent. I doubt they are "real" or would feel any pain if they were cut. Though.. voodu photos would be an interesting idea >=) ______________ Any thoughts? --Fyre Wood Howdy Folks, I'm kinda new to this group, But I come baring opinions on this matter. I've always had the assumption in my mind that a photograph was a photocopy of the subject, in that moment in time, in that what ever the person was thinking or feeling was taken into the picture with them and stayed there as long as the picture was in existence. When Colin took the Lockhart/Potter picture, Harry wanted to be as far from the situation as possible, and Lockhart wanted to ham up the situation, or in the case of Dumbledore's wizard card, (c. book 1) when Harry read the card the second time, Dumbledore was gone, he might have had some thoughts in his head at the time the Picture was taken like, "gotta get ready for the next Term at Hogsworts, " or " we have to hurry and save Lily and James." So off the Picture goes to do whatever. This theory also carries to painted pictures as well, and explains why they can be more interactive. A photo takes as long as the exposure is set up for to come to be, but it could take Hours, days, maybe weeks, to paint a picture. The longer the copy takes to reproduce, the more of a mental copy goes with it. R. MacDonald ICQ #15170395 Caliway26 at ns.sympatico.ca From coriolan_cmc at hotmail.com Fri Aug 9 17:54:15 2002 From: coriolan_cmc at hotmail.com (coriolan_cmc2001) Date: Fri, 09 Aug 2002 17:54:15 -0000 Subject: Bagman Making Bets (filk) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42348 Bagman Making Bets (to the tune of Elton John's Bennie & the Jets) Dedicated to Linda McCabe (prompted by her suggestion) Hear the original at: http://www.wtv-zone.com/ezegoinguy/Musicpage3.html THE SCENE: Before the Quidditch World Cup. Enter BAGMAN and the TRIO BAGMAN Hey kids, toss the dice together Dame Fortune's lovin' someone And she's lighter than a feather I call the Quidditch Cup tonight So stick around You're gonna hear me do my voice trick, Sonorum resounds. HARRY Hey, Hermy & Ronnie, have you seen him yet? Though he's so played out, B-B-Bagman's making bets. He's dog-eared and he's blundering Yet Ludo has his serenade And poor George & Fred were both misled `Cause when it's time to pay he splits the scene Oh, B-B-Bagman making bets. BAGMAN Hey, gang, make book on the Tri-Wiz The odds are one-sided But sure to win my guy is I shall contrive, let me help Harry along When he fights the dragon he'll have my hints I'll win Gold on this shot so long TRIO Hey, Moody & Griphook, have you caught him yet? Will he just fade out, B-B-Bagman will, we bet. He's impaired and he's lumbering Yet Ludo has his serenade And with Fred and George he raised their gorge `Cause when it's time to pay he splits the scene Oh, B-B-Bagman making bets. Bagman .. Bagman .. Bagman .. - CMC HARRY POTTER FILKS http://home.att.net/~coriolan/hpfilks.htm From gandharvika at hotmail.com Fri Aug 9 18:35:44 2002 From: gandharvika at hotmail.com (Gail Bohacek) Date: Fri, 09 Aug 2002 18:35:44 +0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Synchronicity HP (FILK) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42349 Synchronicity HP (a FILK by Gail Bohacek to the tune of _Synchronicity II_ by The Police) Another suburban Muggle morning Dudley's loud snores are heard through the walls Harry's awakened by a horrible nightmare He trys hard to remember it all Harry dips his quill in ink and writes a note to Sirius Maybe he knows what it's all about Alone he sits and stares into the distance Thoughts are filled with worry and with doubt Many miles away You-Know-Who lifts his wand; Frank Bryce is wiped out Another Divisions class to sit through Trelawney talks about the effects of Mars Purfumed smoke and heat make Harry very drowsy As she points out the postions of the stars Harry drifts to sleep and see yet another vison On the floor, in pain, the class stands to watch In Dumbledore's office, Harry overhears a meeting They're talking about Mr. Crouch Many miles away, You-Know-Who says, "Crucio." Wormtail pays for his botch Dumbledore has an interesting theory The scar which Lord Voldemort left behind Lets Harry know when he's near or feeling murderous And Harry can see it all inside his mind Harry asks if he thinks Voldemort is getting stronger Dumbledore tells him his suspicions Harry turns to leave now, D'dore says one last thing: "Good luck with the Third task, oh Champion." Many miles away You-Know-Who plots his return In a manor on a hill, overlooking Little Hamilton Many miles away... Many miles away... (-My first FILK...I'm so *proud*) _________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com From bdmorrp at budget.state.ny.us Fri Aug 9 18:27:53 2002 From: bdmorrp at budget.state.ny.us (erisedstraeh2002) Date: Fri, 09 Aug 2002 18:27:53 -0000 Subject: Mars is Bright Tonight Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42350 Knowing almost nothing about astronomy, I was intrigued by what the centaurs' repetition of "Mars is bright tonight" in Ch. 15 of SS could possibly mean. So, I did a little investigating, and found some interesting parallels. Mars was the Roman god of war, and was driven by rage and a stong desire for violence, especially mindless killing (sounds a lot like Voldemort to me!). Mars was said to have raped Rhea Silvia, a Vestal Virgin, and as a result, Reah Silvia had twin sons, Romulus and *Remus*. Since Remus is Prof. Lupin's first name, could this suggest that Lupin is related to Voldemort? Yikes! Mars was conceived when the Goddess Juno, who was annoyed that her husband Jupiter had produced *Minerva* from his head without her aid, asked the help of the Goddess Flora, who touched Juno with a magical herb and impregnated Juno with Mars. Since Minerva is Prof. McGonagall's first name, does this suggest that McGonagall had something to do with Voldemort's creation? Double yikes! In SS, Ronan says "Mars is bright tonight...Unusually bright" (p. 253, Scholastic paperback ed.). In an on-line book about Mars by William Sheehan, I read "the outer planets - Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn - can appear opposite the Sun in the sky, a situation that is, of course, never possible for a planet that is closer to the Sun than the Earth. When planets appear thus, they are said to be at opposition. It is then that they attain their greatest brilliance. They rise when the Sun sets and set when the Sun rises, so they are highest above the horizon at midnight." This perhaps explains why Harry's astronomy classes are at midnight! Since the Forbidden Forest detention started at 11:00 p.m., Mars would have been in full view by the time Hagrid, Harry et al came across the centaurs. Bane also says "Have we not read what is to come in the movement of the planets?" (SS, p. 257). Sheehan's book says "Mars' usual motion among the stars is from east to west. Around the time of opposition, however, it suddenly stops, reverses direction, and moves 'retrograde' for a time, then stops again and resumes its usual motion from east to west." Do the centaurs see Mars moving backward and interpret this to mean a return of Voldemort's reign of terror? Sheehan's book also states that Mars varies in its brightness, some "fiftyfold," and that Mars comes into "opposition" every two years and two months. I wondered whether this could mean that significant events in the series will happen during these times of "opposition." Assuming that Mars is in "opposition" during the Forbidden Forest detention in May 1992, two years and and two months later would be July 1994. Pettigrew escapes in June 1994, which is fairly close. If this theory holds, the next time of "opposition" would be September 1996 (Book 6, presumably). However, since the worst thing that has happened so far in the series (IMHO) is Voldemort's re-embodiment, which did not happen during one of these times of "opposition," there may not be much to this line of thinking! Any thoughts? Cheers, Phyllis who, now that she understands the difference between Diary!Riddle and Voldemort!Riddle, is wondering whether we should rename Diary! Riddle "Moldy!Voldy" From carmenharms at yahoo.com Fri Aug 9 17:48:03 2002 From: carmenharms at yahoo.com (snazzzybird) Date: Fri, 09 Aug 2002 17:48:03 -0000 Subject: Wizard Photographs In-Reply-To: <01C06ACE.DB002180.msmacgoo@one.net.au> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42351 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Snuffles MacGoo wrote: > I've been wondering this for some time - about the Wizard pictures - what > happens when someone dies? Does their image stop moving? What is it that moves? > - Gilroy Lockart's photographic image appeared to share his vanity, What else > might they share? > storm I have wondered about this too. At first I assumed that the camera captured a person's appearance and certain personality traits (ie Lockhart's vanity), and that these would remain as they were at the time the photo was taken. A person who died in real life would still "move" in photographs. By the same token, the photo would not age as the person aged: any photo taken of Harry as a baby, for example, would always be a photo of a baby -- not Harry at whatever is current age might be. However, canon gives us an incident which confuses this issue. I'm sorry I can't remember which book it's in -- but Percy has a photograph of Penelope Clearwater, and she's ducking out of the photo because she has a pimple. Did she have this pimple when the photo was taken? Unlikely, because she wouldn't have given such a photo to Percy. (Or if he was the photographer, she would have begged him not to take a picture of her until the pimple cleared up, and he surely would have complied.) So how did the "Penelope" in the photo get the pimple? If she got it because the real-life Penelope got one, then why doesn't the wedding photo of Sirius Black show a thin man with long, scraggly hair? --Snazzzybird, who doesn't even want to think about what this would lmean for photos of dead people... and who is sorry to add another level of complication to an already complicated question. From dicentra at xmission.com Fri Aug 9 18:48:46 2002 From: dicentra at xmission.com (dicentra63) Date: Fri, 09 Aug 2002 18:48:46 -0000 Subject: The Fateful Night (VERY long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42352 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "pippin_999" wrote: > Pippin said: > > IMO, it is much more likely to have been polyjuiced Pettigrew. It > is hard for me to understand why Sirius would have wanted to > take Harry with him if he was a) overwhelmed with grief for the > Potters b) bent on finding Peter and c) knew that Dumbledore > was taking personal responsibility for Harry's safety. I find it hard > to believe that the real Sirius would have argued against > Dumbledore's orders with Hagrid.> I find Sirius's actions totally in character, however. We don't know that much about him, but what we see him do in PoA and GoF is motivated primarily for his concern for Harry's safety. He takes his role as godfather *very* seriously, regularly setting aside his own comfort and safety for Harry's sake. He may have been overwhelmed with grief over the Potters' death, but he was just as determined to carry out his promise to them. Sirius is Mr. Loyal, remember? His own grief isn't going to stand in the way of his responsibilities. When he saw Hagrid making off with Harry, he saw the Potters' wishes not being carried out -- maybe he thought Dumbledore didn't know he had been charged with Harry's care. That's why he would have argued with Hagrid. As far as being hell-bent on getting Peter, I don't think that was his first priority -- Harry was. When he no longer had Harry to worry about, he could go look for Peter. --Dicentra, Sirius apologist From ra_1013 at yahoo.com Fri Aug 9 18:53:42 2002 From: ra_1013 at yahoo.com (Andrea) Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2002 11:53:42 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Wizard Photographs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020809185342.77385.qmail@web10901.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 42353 --- snazzzybird wrote: > However, canon gives us an incident which confuses this issue. I'm > sorry I can't remember which book it's in -- but Percy has a > photograph of Penelope Clearwater, and she's ducking out of the photo > because she has a pimple. Did she have this pimple when the photo > was taken? Unlikely, because she wouldn't have given such a photo to > Percy. (Or if he was the photographer, she would have begged him not > to take a picture of her until the pimple cleared up, and he surely > would have complied.) So how did the "Penelope" in the photo get the > pimple? If she got it because the real-life Penelope got one, then > why doesn't the wedding photo of Sirius Black show a thin man with > long, scraggly hair? Easy enough -- it wasn't a pimple. :) The twins spilled tea on the photo and she was hiding because of the tea stain, not a pimple. My opinion is that the photograph is literally a snapshot of that person at that moment in time -- whatever he or she is feeling in addition to how he/she looks. So Lockhart's pictures are always vain because that's literally the only thought in his head. ;) Harry was struggling to get away because that's what he was doing when the picture was taken -- physically and mentally. Penelope was taking a picture for her boyfriend, so she probably wanted to look pretty, which the tea stain ruined. Andrea ===== "Reality is for people who lack imagination." __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? HotJobs - Search Thousands of New Jobs http://www.hotjobs.com From fyredriftwood at yahoo.com Fri Aug 9 17:23:37 2002 From: fyredriftwood at yahoo.com (fyredriftwood) Date: Fri, 09 Aug 2002 17:23:37 -0000 Subject: Wizard Photographs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42354 R. MacDonald replied to me with some of the following =) I've always had the assumption in my mind that a photograph > was a photocopy of the subject, in that moment in time, in that what ever > the person was thinking or feeling was taken into the picture with them and > stayed there as long as the picture was in existence. When Colin took the > Lockhart/Potter picture, Harry wanted to be as far from the situation as > possible, and Lockhart wanted to ham up the situation, or in the case of > Dumbledore's wizard card, (c. book 1) when Harry read the card the second > time, Dumbledore was gone, he might have had some thoughts in his head at > the time the Picture was taken like, "gotta get ready for the next Term at > Hogsworts, " or " we have to hurry and save Lily and James." So off the > Picture goes to do whatever. > > This theory also carries to painted pictures as well, and explains why > they can be more interactive. A photo takes as long as the exposure is set > up for to come to be, but it could take Hours, days, maybe weeks, to paint a > picture. The longer the copy takes to reproduce, the more of a mental copy > goes with it. I see what you're saying. You basically took my shortened explaination and elaborated on that. Sweet. I like your new idea with painted pictures. Never would have thought of that one. However, does the painted picture come to life as you're painting it, or does it come to life when you're done? It would seem harder to paint something that was moving all the time. Imgaine if you're paining a person and she has no clothes on yet? Does she run around the painting trying to hide from you because she's naked? Or, if you're painting two animals attacking each other, do they do it while you're still working on them? I like the fact you've opened up new doors of possibilities. Btw.. is your name Ronald MacDonald? Just curious hehehehe. --Fyre Wood From msiscusack at yahoo.com Fri Aug 9 19:01:10 2002 From: msiscusack at yahoo.com (Kristin Cusack) Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2002 12:01:10 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Wizard Photographs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020809190110.26264.qmail@web13103.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 42355 --- snazzzybird wrote: A person who died in real > life would > still "move" in photographs.... ... I'm > sorry I can't remember which book it's in -- but > Percy has a > photograph of Penelope Clearwater, and she's ducking > out of the photo > because she has a pimple.... ... > --Snazzzybird, who doesn't even want to think about > what this would > lmean for photos of dead people... and who is sorry > to add another > level of complication to an already complicated > question. Me: A) I thought, and someone siad it in a recent post as well, that Penelope is ducking out of the picture because someone spilled something on the photo and there was now a spot on her nose. I don't have the books with me so I could be completely wrong...but when I read the original post it sounded familar to me. and B) Harry has a whole album of his dead parents which Hagrid gave him and they are waving happily at him. Obviously their death did not affect their demeanor in their wedding photos, or any others. I would just assume that the photo captures your personality at the moment and the image mildly reacts to what is going on around it. Most of the photos just wave and wander in and out of view. (because usually when people have their photo taken it is with the intention of just something to look at...a token of memory...us muggles sometimes wave at the camera as its taking our photo) In cases sush as the Harry/Lockhart photo, Harry was not in the mood to have his picture taken and that is evident in his image. A more intersting question is the paintings...the paintings don;t merely smile and wave. They have personalities. The Fat Lady gets annoyed when she is bothered for no reason, she gets scared and embarrassed (PoA) and she has a friend, Violet (GoF0 who she gets drunk with off chocolate liquers at X-Mas. Sir Cadogan has a distinct personality as well. Why does a painting capture a complete interactive personality where as a photo is emrely a reflection of the person at the moment it was taken. You can not talk to the photos as you can paintings. Any thoguhts? ~Kristin __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? HotJobs - Search Thousands of New Jobs http://www.hotjobs.com From coriolan_cmc at hotmail.com Fri Aug 9 19:06:43 2002 From: coriolan_cmc at hotmail.com (coriolan_cmc2001) Date: Fri, 09 Aug 2002 19:06:43 -0000 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?You_Don=92t_Mess_Around_With_Marge_(filk)?= Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42356 You Don't Mess Around With Marge (PoA, Chap. 2) To the tune of You Don't Mess Around With Jim by Jim Croce Dedicated to Frankie Hear an instrumental version at: http://ventures.pl.ru:8000/music/74-1/ THE SCENE: Four Privet Drive. VERNON prepares HARRY for the arrival of his sister MARGE HARRY Gringott's has its goblins In Potions, we got Snape Four Privet Drive gets Big Aunt Margie The proverb'yal 800-lb ape VERNON Though it makes you glum your Aunt Marge will come She's a woman of such quality Don't want her hearin' a single word spoken About your abnormality DUDLEY: (Just because ...) PETUNIA: (They say ...) VERNON: You don't BS with a bulldog HARRY: You don't watch a basilisk charge BOTH: You don't make a pillow of a sharp Dursley drill, oh, And you don't mess around with Marge Ba-doo-da-doo-doo doo-doo-doo-doo doot HARRY Well, to the village of Hogsmeade all the third-years flock But seems I'm needin' this note signed by you And if your Hancock I lack, I'm sure to go off half-cracked And forget about St. Bru Now you are wantin' to tell Marge I'm Incurable To a Secure Center I go And though it may quite a struggle, I'll play the good Muggle But I ain't without no quid pro quo DUDLEY & PETUNIA (And everybody say, Jack -- don't you know that...) VERNON: You don't take a donut from Dudley HARRY: You don't Dumbledore discharge BOTH: And though we are hatin' this negotiatin' I/Vern just can't mess around with Marge Ba-doo-da-doo-doo doo-doo-doo-doo doot (VERNON agrees to sign HARRY's note in exchange for his going along with the St. Brutus ruse) HARRY: With a sigh I entered my bedroom Then Hedwig's sent flyin' off into air And when the cleanin' was done, the only thing that wasn't Muggly Was my scar and untidy hair. VERNON She'll carp at him in a hundred ways, Sis Can tear him worse than Ripper tore And he better not risk it, else it's strictly dog biscuits When Big Marge hits our door VERNON: You don't make a Muggle love magic HARRY: You don't ask a dragon to dance (Enter MARGE, with a heavy suitcase in one hand and Ripper the Bulldog in the other ) MARGE: And it's just like they used to always say to Bertie Wooster, ALL: "You just don't mess around with Aunts" Ba-doo-da-doo-doo doo-doo-doo-doo doot - CMC NOTE: Bertie Wooster, protagonist and narrator of many of PG Wodehouse's finest novels and stories, was frequently terrorized by his formidable Aunt Agatha, "who eats broken bottles and wears barbed wire around her skin," as well as by his friendlier but quite boisterous Aunt Dahlia. HARRY POTTER FILKS http://home.att.net/~coriolan/hpfilks.htm From Caliway26 at ns.sympatico.ca Fri Aug 9 19:13:28 2002 From: Caliway26 at ns.sympatico.ca (R. MacDonald) Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2002 16:13:28 -0300 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Wizard Photographs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42357 Fyre Wood wrote: I like your new idea with painted pictures. Never would have thought of that one. However, does the painted picture come to life as you're painting it, or does it come to life when you're done? It would seem harder to paint something that was moving all the time. Imgaine if you're paining a person and she has no clothes on yet? Does she run around the painting trying to hide from you because she's naked? Or, if you're painting two animals attacking each other, do they do it while you're still working on them? I like the fact you've opened up new doors of possibilities. Btw.. is your name Ronald MacDonald? Just curious hehehehe. If I was to guess, and not being a Magic user of Any kind, it would be a guess, I would have to say that much like a spell, before completion is just a collection of words, a painting is just a mess of paints until it is complete. You would have to ask the question when is a photo a photo. when the light hits the film or after the developing fluid raises the exposure out of the negative. If the picture was of dumbledore, and you only had the head... is it still Dumbledore? Or if you didn't have the head, would it be just Dumbledore's clothing? And My name is Ray, My Burgers are better R. MacDonald ICQ #15170395 Caliway26 at ns.sympatico.ca . [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Fri Aug 9 19:42:56 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Fri, 09 Aug 2002 19:42:56 -0000 Subject: Wizard Photographs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42358 > Fyre Wood wrote: > > I like your new idea with painted pictures. Never would have thought > of that one. However, does the painted picture come to life as you're > painting it, or does it come to life when you're done? It would seem > harder to paint something that was moving all the time. Imgaine if > you're paining a person and she has no clothes on yet? Does she run > around the painting trying to hide from you because she's naked? Or, > if you're painting two animals attacking each other, do they do it > while you're still working on them? Looking up canon, we know that a magical photo is a photo that has been revealed with a special liquid (just after the three traditional red-blue-yellow ones, I'd imagine), to fix the personality capture to the photo paper. Thus, I'd imagine that the images aren't moving before it (since it's a perfectly normal picture until then). By extrapolating, I can imagine that a magical painting receives a final layer of magical paint that brings all the paint to "life", with the personalities adquired during the painting. Hope that helps, Grey Wolf, who hopes there are no Picassos or Munchs in the WW, or else that they're non-ultra-ralistic styles are not used to create living pictures. From mi_shell16 at hotmail.com Fri Aug 9 19:51:22 2002 From: mi_shell16 at hotmail.com (theresnothingtoit) Date: Fri, 09 Aug 2002 19:51:22 -0000 Subject: Snape fulfilling his life debt Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42359 Hello, Does anyone here think Snape will finally be redeamed by fulfilling his life debt to James by using the time turner. It seems a highly *bangy* device that has only been used once and I would like to see Snape redeamed in a very physical way. The story may be that James survived something in his past that it was unknown how he did, Snape's task will be to go back in time to save him. And give up his own life in the process, perhaps. Hmm, I wonder if that flimsy theory will float? No can(n)on but I like it all the same. Theresnothingtoit (There really isn't) From Cornet83 at aol.com Fri Aug 9 19:55:02 2002 From: Cornet83 at aol.com (Cornet83 at aol.com) Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2002 15:55:02 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Wizard Photographs Message-ID: <151.122cad52.2a857816@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 42360 Kristen wrote <<>> Which brought to mind another question for me. How did these paintings get drunk off chocolate liquers? Were these drinks painted into another painting and therefore they just went and picked them up? That of course leads to more questions..... 1) Since these paintings can drink somehow, does this mean they need to eat as well? 2) How do they procure their food? Is it painted within the picture or can they exit their frames and eat "real" food and/or bring something non-painted into their picture? 3) If the food is painted into the picture itself, does it last forever, always reproducing more or does a painter have to come and add more food every now and then. I would think either way would cause problems, someone can't constantly be repainting pictures and I think eating the same meal over and over again for eternity (because presumably paintings can die) would be very tiresome. 4) I know the paintings can move from one painting to another, there are many examples of this throughout the books, but do you think they can step completely outside the frame into the real world? *sigh* So many questions and virtually no answers. The sad thing is that this whole topic probably has nothing to do whatsoever with the plot lines for the next three bookds and yet several people are avidly discussing it. Oh well, have to have something to talk about while waiting for number five right?:) Anyone have and answers/ideas for me? mariahisabel From pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk Fri Aug 9 20:07:27 2002 From: pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk (bluesqueak) Date: Fri, 09 Aug 2002 20:07:27 -0000 Subject: The benefits of metathinking In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42361 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "darrin_burnett" wrote: > I realize metathinking is a bit of a dirty word, but let me speak > in favor of it. > I think metathinking is only a dirty word when people misuse it. For example: one of the spirited responses to my floating the idea that Snape was present when James and Lily died was that canon already provides us with forensic spells (Priori Incantatum), so there need not have been a witness at all. Now if I'd posted my *reaction* to that; which was that handing Harry the forensics report about his parents death wouldn't be half as interesting as Harry finding out that the much disliked Snape tried to save his parents, or interesting as Eloise's *even better* theory that Snape was there undercover and so had to stand there and do nothing; THEN I would have been indulging in 'metathinking isn't fair play'. Or equally, it would have been unfair if I'd used an even higher level argument; that an author should 'show, not tell'. Because the starting post was based on the *internal*, canon evidence. To use my reader reaction is to take the argument up a level, to the external world of the reader interacting with the text. To use a rule of good writing is to take the argument even higher up, to the world of the author's technique in creating the text. The original posts weren't working on that level, weren't intending to consider/use as evidence the reader interaction, or the authorial technique and so 'it isn't fair play'. On the other hand, when you start off a post considering your reader reaction to 'Snape is acting', then we know from the start that we're playing around on one of the higher levels. And that's ok. > There have been a lot of great theories floated the last few days, > especially regarding the night James and Lily died. And the MAGIC > DISHWASHER theory still pokes its head up from time to time. > > Canon can be interpreted in many different ways, Yup. I could probably give you a plausible, canon based argument that Snape is a psychotic sadist who is allowed to continue at Hogwarts because Dumbledore is also secretly a sadist. Dumbledore is Ever So Evil, in fact, and plans to use the potentially-more-powerful-than Dumbledore Harry to kill the equally-powerful-as-Dumbledore Voldemort, using a plan which will inevitably kill Harry, leaving Dumbledore free to take over the world! [Cue high pitched evil laughter]. Heck, I could probably prove that Godric Gryffindor's sword is really Excalibur, retrieved by Gryffindor from the Hogwarts Lake, and so Harry is ... er, no, hang on, I probably CAN'T prove that one. But Ever So Evil Dumbledore is a snap. (or a Snape). [No, of course I don't believe Dumbledore is Ever So Evil. What d'you take me for? [grin] ] > > So, we are left with a bunch of different theories, each plausible > and each fitting with what we know about characters. > Even the DISHWASHER, in all its glory, works. > > So we are left with what makes a good story. Which is where the problems start; because what makes a good story to *me* is not necessarily what makes a good story to you. I enjoy characters who appear to be one thing and are in fact another. Poor stuttering Professor Quirrel turning out to be the villain is my idea of fun. Snape as an actor is more interesting to me than Snape-with- no-subtext - because trying to work out what's really going on in that greasy head is a challenge. I certainly do read novels where the characters are all exactly what they seem; but I see that as a weakness in a writer's skill set; not a strength. > > I disapprove of DISHWASHER not because it doesn't work, but because > I do not want to see a tortured, ambigious character like Snape > become cleaner, which is what happens. The whole idea that he is > able to operate on six different mental levels WHILE pretending to > be so furious he can't see straight cheapens, not strengthens the > character. It takes away what makes him so interesting -- he's a > tragic and heroic figure who hates most of the people he's fighting > with and truly despises the boy who he knows will probably be the > linchpin in his battle. OK, let's take the worst case assumption. Snape is sweet. Snape, in reality, underneath the constraints put on him by his cover story, is a sweet, loving, kind person. He has a pet kitten, who he loves [sorry, can't remember whose idea that was]. He adores teaching, and enjoys nothing more than helping less-competent students grasp his difficult subject. He cried real tears at Lily and James's death, and wants to give Harry some of the hugs he has never received from his cruel aunt and uncle. In fact, he wants to adopt Harry. And as for poor, brave Neville, he just wants to tell him that no-one can do well in every subject, and ... [Pause] Could you excuse me a minute? I think I'm going to throw up. [Even Longer Pause. With Sound Effects.] Ah, that's better. I may like my coffee with cream, but I DON'T want sugar in it. ;-) But the point is, that the revolting Sweet!Snape is going to be MORE tortured, MORE ambiguous, than the straightforward I-hate-everyone! Snape. Because he's still having to do things he really doesn't want to do. And he knows he's probably going to die [I'd rate Snape's chances of surviving to the last page of Book 7 as 50/50 at best] with people believing that he was a nasty, horrible, sadistic git; and what exactly is THAT thought making him feel like? Still tragic, still heroic. More heroic in fact, because he's willing to sacrifice not only his life, but his good name to the cause, and instead of fighting with people he despises, he's willing to let people he really respects despise HIM. But in fact, I don't believe in Sweet!Snape, and I have *never* intended to argue that Snape is 'nice'; only that we should take his apparent hatred of Harry with a generous pinch of salt. The fact that Snape seems to have wandered into Hogwarts via Dostoevsky's Russia makes him more interesting to me as well - it's just that I see him coming from the 'redemption' section of "Crime and Punishment" rather than from the earlier chapters. > But to have the anger be an act takes the interest out of the > character. > Again, it's a matter of what's not interesting to one person might be really interesting to another. Nor does 'the anger is an act' rule out Snape being a genuinely angry person who is deliberately directing and controlling his *real* anger - using it against Harry, for example, instead of against, say, the real targets of Lucius Malfoy and his spoilt little son. Acting quite often uses real emotions - it just directs and controls them. > ...the machinations of Dumbledore, which frankly, takes the focus > away from Harry. He becomes a pawn in a giant game between D-Dore > and V-Mort, INSTEAD of the wild card who changed the game > completely, surprising both sides. By having D-Dore engineer the > thing, or at least partially do so, HE becomes the true epicenter > of the story, not Harry. > > Unacceptable. > No, I would argue against that. There's a long tradition in literature of a wise mentor who spends the first part of the story (and we're only just over half-way through) directing, controlling and even deceiving the hero. For his/her own good, of course. [grin] Think Merlin, and Arthur growing up not knowing who he was. Think Star Wars and 'Darth Vader killed your father'. The point Harry starts becoming an adult is the point when he starts to refuse to be directed, controlled and deceived - even when it is 'for his own good'. When Dumbledore finds he has to STOP moving his little knight about the chessboard, because Harry IS the epicentre of the story. > A little metathinking goes a long way. > > Darrin -- Yeah, but I prefer using enough freshly-washed can(n)on to refight the battle of Trafalgar. Pip Squeak! From speedygonzo242 at hotmail.com Fri Aug 9 20:16:15 2002 From: speedygonzo242 at hotmail.com (frankielee242) Date: Fri, 09 Aug 2002 20:16:15 -0000 Subject: Wizard Photographs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42362 Fyre Wood wrote: > > > > I like your new idea with painted pictures. Never would have thought > > of that one. However, does the painted picture come to life as you're > > painting it, or does it come to life when you're done? > Grey Wolf wrote: > Looking up canon, we know that a magical photo is a photo that has been > revealed with a special liquid (just after the three traditional > red-blue-yellow ones, I'd imagine), to fix the personality capture to > the photo paper. Thus, I'd imagine that the images aren't moving before > it (since it's a perfectly normal picture until then). By > extrapolating, I can imagine that a magical painting receives a final > layer of magical paint that brings all the paint to "life", with the > personalities acquired during the painting. The last step in oil painting is applying varnish (which yellows over time producing a "brown" effect-- the sudden vibrancy of restored paintings always shocks people). Perhaps like the fix potion for photos, the varnish potion for paintings sets them in motion. =) Sorry. I agree with the concept that the amount of time the creation of the image affects how much of the subject's personality enters the artwork and would like to add the following: Photographs capture a split second of light reflecting off of assorted surfaces, but paintings are an extended collaboration between the painter and the sitter. Therefore, they reveal a mix of BOTH personalties but may or may not *look* particularly like the sitter. Whether or not the subject of the artwork is still alive doesn't seem to affect the paintings or the photos of Harry's parents. I think the condition the artwork is in affects the subject featured. The photo of Percy's girlfriend had a tea-stain on her nose and kept hiding under the frame (PoA). When the Fat Lady's canvas was torn up (PoA), she hid in other paintings until Filtch could restore her. What I'm not entirely sure about is how much the images interact with the surrounding environment. Lockhart's photos all put on hair nets and rollers at night. Then they all nod in agreement while the actual Lockhart rambles on about Filtch's cat (CoS). The Hogwarts paintings talk to students and scoot through each other's frames regularly, but where on earth did Violet and the Fat Lady get the chocolate liquors in GoF? Does Honeydukes supply paintings of food in the Unusual Tastes section? If a painting of a horse eats most of a painting of a bowl of fruit, does the fruit bowl remain empty or does the fruit ever reappear? Take the question however you like. =P Thinking about Pygmalion... could the same ever happen to a WW painting? Grey Wolf then wrote: > Grey Wolf, who hopes there are no Picassos or Munchs in the WW, or else > that they're non-ultra-realistic styles are not used to create living > pictures. I am now going to have nightmares about Francis Bacon, thank you very much Gray Wolf. Perhaps the nonrepresentational artists in the WW would create large canvases of perpetually shifting areas of color. That could be very soothing, actually... Frankie, who suffered through four years of 8 AM art history classes. From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Fri Aug 9 20:45:21 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Fri, 09 Aug 2002 20:45:21 -0000 Subject: Snape fulfilling his life debt In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42363 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "theresnothingtoit" wrote: > Hello, > Does anyone here think Snape will finally be redeamed by fulfilling > his life debt to James by using the time turner. It seems a highly > *bangy* device that has only been used once and I would like to see > Snape redeamed in a very physical way. > The story may be that James survived something in his past that it > was unknown how he did, Snape's task will be to go back in time to > save him. And give up his own life in the process, perhaps. > Hmm, I wonder if that flimsy theory will float? > No can(n)on but I like it all the same. > > Theresnothingtoit > (There really isn't) The trouble with Time-Turners is that only allow you, so far, to go *back* in time. Which means that if Snape, say in book five, used that method to fulfill his life debt, he *could* go back 15 or more years into the past, but than would have to *live* through those 15 years *again* to reach the moment in time when he used the Time-Turner. And during does years he would have to be extra-cautious to not meet himself. It's easy to manage in short spans of one or two hours, but the possibility of mangling history and the space-time continuum would be too big in bigger spans. And that's even without considering that the Time-Turner might not have enough power to go back so far in time. Hope that helps, Grey Wolf, who agrees that there is nothing to it. From rusalka at ix.netcom.com Fri Aug 9 21:37:44 2002 From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants) Date: Fri, 09 Aug 2002 21:37:44 -0000 Subject: Snape fulfilling his life debt In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42364 I think Snape has already fulfilled his life debt to James when he save Harry from Quirrel's curse in PS. James saved Snape once, Snape saved James' kid once. Seems even to me. Surely, karma doesn't require that Snape run around looking after Harry until Harry dies of old age. Marina rusalka at ix.netcom.com From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Fri Aug 9 21:42:37 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Fri, 09 Aug 2002 21:42:37 -0000 Subject: Wizard Photographs In-Reply-To: <151.122cad52.2a857816@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42365 mariahisabel wrote: > Anyone have and answers/ideas for me? You've just have to ask... Let's see what I can up with in the spurr of the moment. /Dulce est desipere in loco currente calamo/, I like to think. > Which brought to mind another question for me. How did these > paintings get drunk off chocolate liquers? Were these drinks painted > into another painting and therefore they just went and picked them > up? I'd say that for christmas and other special hollydays Dumbledore must arrange some painter to paint assorted delicaties for the paintings. These tidbits are hunged all over the castle and the paintings go around choosing their favourites. The rest of the time, however, they can't be allowed to eat food from other pictures, since it could cause trouble (if someone ate the ticklish pear that allows entrance to the kitchen they could have big trouble, after all). I'd say that I wouldn't like the pictures to eat my favourite "Dead nature" pictures, even if they aren't providing entrance to some place, anyway. > That of course leads to more questions... > 1) Since these paintings can drink somehow, does this mean they need > to eat as well? Don't confuse "can" and "must". I'd say that the pictures of people *can* eat and dring but *don't have to*. That is, they eat only for the pleasure of it. They can't change from what they were painted, so no amount of chocolate will put any pound on their frames, and spending a year without eating or drink won't kill them. > 2) How do they procure their food? Is it painted within the picture > or can they exit their frames and eat "real" food and/or bring > something non-painted into their picture? As I've said previously, I'd imagine that there are specially prepared pictures for them to eat. I'd discount being able of introducing real things into the picture dimension, since it could cause some very heavy consequences (consider that the magic picture dimension works in three dimensions, while we live in four[1]). > 3) If the food is painted into the picture itself, does it last > forever, always reproducing more or does a painter have to come and > add more food every now and then. I would think either way would > cause problems, someone can't constantly be repainting pictures and I > think eating the same meal over and over again for eternity (because > presumably paintings can die) would be very tiresome. I'd imagine that the food is consumed and the picture needs to be replaced. On the other hand, as I've said, I don't think the pictures *need* to eat, so a prolongued absence of food woudn't hurt them (unless they had been painted while being hungry, of course, but in that case I don't think any amount of food would help anyway). > 4) I know the paintings can move from one painting to another, there > are many examples of this throughout the books, but do you think they > can step completely outside the frame into the real world? No, As I've said, I don't think they can cross the fourth wall into the four-dimension universe from their three-dimension one[1]. > *sigh* So many questions and virtually no answers. The sad thing is > that this whole topic probably has nothing to do whatsoever with the > plot lines for the next three bookds and yet several people are > avidly discussing it. Oh well, have to have something to talk about > while waiting for number five right?:) > > mariahisabel Um, mariahisabel, I should point out that this discussion is being great fun, which should be one of the prime reasons for participating. My score in out-guessing JKR is so low over the first four books that it's a mathematical certainty that she will continue to surprise me. Thus, I realised a long time ago that most of our discusions -fun as they are- are going to miss the mark by a wide stretch. It's nothing to worry about. In fact, it's sometimes even more fun to discuss something that we will never be able to solve since, if we solved it, what would we discuss about? > I wrote: > > Grey Wolf, who hopes there are no Picassos or Munchs in the WW, or > > else that they're non-ultra-realistic styles are not used to create > > living pictures. > > to which Frankie said: > I am now going to have nightmares about Francis Bacon, thank you very > much *Gray* Wolf. Perhaps the nonrepresentational artists in the WW > would create large canvases of perpetually shifting areas of color. > That could be very soothing, actually... [emphasis mine] Gray Wolf? *Gray* Wolf? Ohmygod what have I done to deserve that? Would you like me to call you Frankia? Hum? ;-P Hope that helps, GrEy Wolf. Not "Gray", not "Wolfe". Grey. Got it? Grey. [1] In case you're wondering, our four dimensions are the three dimensions of space and the *time* dimension. The magical pictures only exist in two dimensions of space, and of course time. Strangely enough, normal pictures *can be considered* to exist in only two dimensions, since -if properly consevated- they won't change in time. From flower_fairy12 at yahoo.co.uk Fri Aug 9 21:08:00 2002 From: flower_fairy12 at yahoo.co.uk (flower_fairy12) Date: Fri, 09 Aug 2002 21:08:00 -0000 Subject: Snape fulfilling his life debt In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42366 theresnothingtoitwrote: >Does anyone here think Snape will finally be redeamed by fulfilling > his life debt to James by using the time turner. It seems a highly > *bangy* device that has only been used once and I would like to see > Snape redeamed in a very physical way. > The story may be that James survived something in his past that it > was unknown how he did, Snape's task will be to go back in time to > save him. It would be really dangerous to do that. He would be leading a double life for 15 years and even if he did manage to save all the Potters, he would have changed history and in PoA, Dumbledore says that would be a huge mess (not the exact words :)). Besides, where would we be without "The Boy Who Lived"? :D Rosie From fyredriftwood at yahoo.com Fri Aug 9 21:11:58 2002 From: fyredriftwood at yahoo.com (fyredriftwood) Date: Fri, 09 Aug 2002 21:11:58 -0000 Subject: Wizard Photographs.. more thoughts on this =) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42367 R. Macdonald wrote: "And My name is Ray, My Burgers are better" Hello Ray =) I was just curious and i appologise for the lame joke I made. I would like to try a burger of yours if you don't mind. and now, for my thoughts: As I was reading through the posts, a thought suddenly came to me: Do you have to use a certain camera or is it just the way you develop the film? And for paintings--is it a certain type of paint or a magic spell that brings them to life? Once again, I think we're getting ourselves into this too much.. but hey... Harry Potter is worth it =) --Fyre Wood http://destined.to/hiddendesire Proud to be a Draco/Harry shipper hehe From Caliway26 at ns.sympatico.ca Fri Aug 9 21:48:43 2002 From: Caliway26 at ns.sympatico.ca (R. MacDonald) Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2002 18:48:43 -0300 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape fulfilling his life debt In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42368 -----Original Message----- From: marinafrants [mailto:rusalka at ix.netcom.com] Sent: Friday, August 09, 2002 6:38 PM To: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape fulfilling his life debt I think Snape has already fulfilled his life debt to James when he save Harry from Quirrel's curse in PS. James saved Snape once, Snape saved James' kid once. Seems even to me. Surely, karma doesn't require that Snape run around looking after Harry until Harry dies of old age. Marina I think that would depend on your definition of Life debt. If it is the Debt pf one life, then yes, Snape saved a life from the Potter Line, his Dept to James would have been saved through Harry. However if the definition means Debt for Life, then Snape would be in debited twice to the Potter line, to James himself, and then to Harry, because Snape would have failed to protect the life of James. Also in this definition, Snape would be indebt to the Potters for the rest of his life. R. MacDonald ICQ #15170395 Caliway26 at ns.sympatico.ca [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Fri Aug 9 22:34:27 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Fri, 09 Aug 2002 22:34:27 -0000 Subject: Wizard Photographs.. more thoughts on this =) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42369 Fyre Wood wrote: > As I was reading through the posts, a thought suddenly came to me: Do > you have to use a certain camera or is it just the way you develop > the film? We've actually have canon for this one: Creevy tells Harry in CoS that a normal muggle camera will serve, the picture only needs to be developed with a special potion. Can't remember where in the book, though. Sorry. > And for paintings--is it a certain type of paint or a magic spell > that brings them to life? As I've said in a previous post, I'd say that it's, like in the case of photos, a special potion that is aplied at the end of the process, just after the varnish (thanks, Frankie. Just *please* don't misspell my name). No canon for this though, although it seems logical that the moving photographs were invented by a wizard/witch that didn't recognize the photo for what it was. Ater all, wizards and witches are not supposed to understand muggle technology. hope that helps, Grey Wolf From carmenharms at yahoo.com Fri Aug 9 22:41:20 2002 From: carmenharms at yahoo.com (snazzzybird) Date: Fri, 09 Aug 2002 22:41:20 -0000 Subject: Wizard Photographs In-Reply-To: <20020809185342.77385.qmail@web10901.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42370 I wrote: > > However, canon gives us an incident which confuses this issue. I'm > > sorry I can't remember which book it's in -- but Percy has a > > photograph of Penelope Clearwater, and she's ducking out of the photo > > because she has a pimple. Did she have this pimple when the photo > > was taken? Unlikely, because she wouldn't have given such a photo to > > Percy. (Or if he was the photographer, she would have begged him not > > to take a picture of her until the pimple cleared up, and he surely > > would have complied.) So how did the "Penelope" in the photo get the > > pimple? If she got it because the real-life Penelope got one, then > > why doesn't the wedding photo of Sirius Black show a thin man with > > long, scraggly hair? Then Andrea wrote: > Easy enough -- it wasn't a pimple. :) The twins spilled tea on the photo > and she was hiding because of the tea stain, not a pimple. > > My opinion is that the photograph is literally a snapshot of that person > at that moment in time -- whatever he or she is feeling in addition to how > he/she looks. So Lockhart's pictures are always vain because that's > literally the only thought in his head. ;) Harry was struggling to get > away because that's what he was doing when the picture was taken -- > physically and mentally. Penelope was taking a picture for her boyfriend, > so she probably wanted to look pretty, which the tea stain ruined. > > Andrea > snazzzybird again: Now I have the book in front of me (PoA, hardback, U.S. edition), and I see that the reference is ambiguous. On Page 69, the first page of Chapter Five, "The Dementor", Ron says to Harry, "At least I can get away from Percy at Hogwarts. Now he's accusing me of dripping tea on his photo of Penelope Clearwater... She's hidden her face under the frame because her nose has gone all blotchy." Ron doesn't say whether or not he dripped tea on the photo, or whether tea was dripped on the photo at all: just that Percy accused him of same. And to me, the language itself is vague: "her nose has gone all blotchy" doesn't sound like some outside force caused the blotchiness. But that could be my own misinterpretation of a British manner of speaking. --snazzzy "separated by a common language" bird From drednort at alphalink.com.au Fri Aug 9 23:09:23 2002 From: drednort at alphalink.com.au (Shaun Hately) Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 09:09:23 +1000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Mars is Bright Tonight In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <3D54D843.23213.1593D6@localhost> No: HPFGUIDX 42371 On 9 Aug 2002 at 18:27, erisedstraeh2002 wrote: > Sheehan's book also states that Mars varies in its brightness, > some "fiftyfold," and that Mars comes into "opposition" every two > years and two months. I wondered whether this could mean that > significant events in the series will happen during these times > of "opposition." Assuming that Mars is in "opposition" during the > Forbidden Forest detention in May 1992, two years and and two months > later would be July 1994. Pettigrew escapes in June 1994, which is > fairly close. If this theory holds, the next time of "opposition" > would be September 1996 (Book 6, presumably). However, since the > worst thing that has happened so far in the series (IMHO) is > Voldemort's re-embodiment, which did not happen during one of these > times of "opposition," there may not be much to this line of thinking! Well, writing as an astronomer, I can give Opposition Dates for Mars, and there isn't one around May 1992 - late November 1990 and early January 1993 are the closest dates. Of course, that doesn't mean that in JKRs universe, that necessarily applies. I've seen a couple of astronomical discussions relating to this - here's an offer for anyone who wants it. I can easily generate basic star and planet location maps for any date, and put them on a website for people (it's not hard, I just have the software to do it). There might be interest for some people in their discussions - for example, I can put maps of the night sky over Scotland for the 'Mars is Bright' date, or maybe people looking for some astrological significance, might like a skymap of Harry's birthday - basically any Harry Potter associated dates anyone wants. I just need the date, the time of day if it's relevant (otherwise I will use local midnight) and the geographic location (country will do - Scotland, England, whatever). I get a lot out of reading this list - might be a way of giving something back. Yours Without Wax, Dreadnought Shaun Hately |webpage: http://www.alphalink.com.au/~drednort/thelab.html (ISTJ) |email: drednort at alphalink.com.au | ICQ: 6898200 "You know the very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. They don't alter their views to fit the facts. They alter the facts to fit the views. Which can be uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that need altering." The Doctor - Doctor Who: The Face of Evil | Where am I: Frankston, Victoria, Australia From fyredriftwood at yahoo.com Fri Aug 9 22:46:35 2002 From: fyredriftwood at yahoo.com (fyredriftwood) Date: Fri, 09 Aug 2002 22:46:35 -0000 Subject: Wizard Photographs.. more thoughts on this =) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42372 Grey Wolf answered my post with: > We've actually have canon for this one: Creevy tells Harry in CoS that > a normal muggle camera will serve, the picture only needs to be > developed with a special potion. Can't remember where in the book, > though. Sorry. I reply with the following: I remember that now! ::smacks head for being dumb:: I probably wasn't thinking about that when I typed the post because I hate the CoS book (due to Lockhart, the plot being the same as book 1--sort of, etc etc). I found in the book where Creepy Colin Creevy mentioned that. Thanks for answering my question. =) This group rocks. From SnapesSlytherin at aol.com Fri Aug 9 23:39:35 2002 From: SnapesSlytherin at aol.com (SnapesSlytherin at aol.com) Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2002 19:39:35 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Wizard Photographs.. more thoughts on this =) Message-ID: <102.197329e2.2a85acb7@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 42373 In a message dated 8/9/02 7:35:11 PM Eastern Daylight Time, fyredriftwood at yahoo.com writes: > Grey Wolf answered my post with: > > > > We've actually have canon for this one: Creevy tells Harry in CoS > that > > a normal muggle camera will serve, the picture only needs to be > > developed with a special potion. Can't remember where in the book, > > though. Sorry. > Where does he tell him this? I don't remember Colin saying anything about cameras in CoS....but I have the American version. To keep this on-topic, I always thought that the wizard photos were a little like Diary!Riddle. They know who they are but they're only a memory of the person, like a home movie of you and your friends from where you were little. I don't think cutting the picture up would hurt them, because they could always move. But I think this is one of those things we'll never find out... ~*~*~Talia Dawn~*~*~ (Who recently took a personality test on Emode.com and now *knows* that she is what everyone always tells her she is - pure evil.) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bard7696 at aol.com Sat Aug 10 00:04:26 2002 From: bard7696 at aol.com (darrin_burnett) Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 00:04:26 -0000 Subject: Snape fulfilling his life debt In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42374 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "marinafrants" wrote: > I think Snape has already fulfilled his life debt to James when he > save Harry from Quirrel's curse in PS. James saved Snape once, Snape > saved James' kid once. Seems even to me. Surely, karma doesn't > require that Snape run around looking after Harry until Harry dies of > old age. > > Marina > rusalka at i... Snape certainly held off Quirrell's curse, but Harry was not removed from danger until Hermione did her hotfoot routine, so at the very most, Snape only gets an assist. If Snape has a real life debt, which I view as a kind of magical covenant with James and his line, this doesn't seem to satisfy it. Darrin -- If you say you're evil, chances are you aren't From suzchiles at pobox.com Sat Aug 10 01:43:39 2002 From: suzchiles at pobox.com (Suzanne Chiles) Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2002 18:43:39 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Wizard Photographs In-Reply-To: <151.122cad52.2a857816@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42375 mariahisabel asked: > Anyone have and answers/ideas for me? It's magic. One of the things that puzzle me about this list is the insistence that certain aspects of the wizarding world be logical, understandable, and repeatable. I'd like to propose that magic in the Wizarding World can be illogical and eccentric. Zo From rvotaw at i-55.com Sat Aug 10 02:52:30 2002 From: rvotaw at i-55.com (Richelle Votaw) Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2002 21:52:30 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Fateful Night (VERY long) References: Message-ID: <012501c24018$f8c2bd60$f89ccdd1@istu757> No: HPFGUIDX 42376 Dicentra writes: > > As far as being hell-bent on getting Peter, I don't think that was his > first priority -- Harry was. When he no longer had Harry to worry > about, he could go look for Peter. I'm still confused. What exactly *did* Sirius plan to do with a 15 month old baby? Who could he trust to leave him with? He had to leave Harry someplace if he'd taken him, because he couldn't wait too long to go after Peter. The trail would've gone cold. Who could have been trusted? Lupin? Sirius must've had his doubts about him to begin with. Dumbledore? How would he have gotten him to Dumbledore? Put him in daycare? I hardly think so. If Sirius was just being concerned for Harry's safety he was sure being short sighted. A baby's a big responsibility, especially if you've no one else to help, and you're going to have to go after a traitor very shortly. I still think it could've been Snape with a Polyjuice Potion. After all, what better way to further prove himself to Dumbledore than to show up with baby Harry? And he couldn't be seen around the Potter house as himself, of course. Richelle From editor at texas.net Sat Aug 10 02:53:51 2002 From: editor at texas.net (Amanda Geist) Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2002 21:53:51 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape fulfilling his life debt References: Message-ID: <010701c24019$292efae0$be7e63d1@texas.net> No: HPFGUIDX 42377 Theresnothingtoit originally asked: > > Hello, > > Does anyone here think Snape will finally be redeamed by fulfilling > > his life debt to James by using the time turner. It seems a highly > > *bangy* device that has only been used once and I would like to see > > Snape redeamed in a very physical way. > > The story may be that James survived something in his past that it > > was unknown how he did, Snape's task will be to go back in time to > > save him. And give up his own life in the process, perhaps. > > Hmm, I wonder if that flimsy theory will float? > > No can(n)on but I like it all the same. > > Grey Wolf responded: > The trouble with Time-Turners is that only allow you, so far, to go > *back* in time. Which means that if Snape, say in book five, used that > method to fulfill his life debt, he *could* go back 15 or more years > into the past, but than would have to *live* through those 15 years > *again* to reach the moment in time when he used the Time-Turner. And > during does years he would have to be extra-cautious to not meet > himself. It's easy to manage in short spans of one or two hours, but > the possibility of mangling history and the space-time continuum would > be too big in bigger spans. And that's even without considering that > the Time-Turner might not have enough power to go back so far in time. Actually, it doesn't really matter if Snape goes back in time to fulfill the debt. Whatever he did would already have happened in the past, and so no wonderful *new* things would occur in the present. We see this from what happened with Buckbeak. Even though Harry and Hermione, at the time, had absolutely no idea that they would be going back in time to save Buckbeak, it was *happening* right alongside them. Their *current* selves had not gotten to the point where they knew what to do, but their *future* selves were already right there doing it. So if Snape uses the time turner to go back to any point at all, his *future* self would have already done it. The effects would already be there. If this does happen, his *current* self, once he figures out what his role in the past is and what it's done, may recognize that he's discharged a debt, but nothing in the timestream will change. It has already happened. And Wolf's point took some working out, but he's right. From our limited sample of Time-Turner, 1 each, the setting is how far back you want to go. Hermione's is set for an hour per turn; we don't know if they all are. But in any case, it allows you to go back and repeat the hour (or however many you selected). It does *not* yank you back into your future time after a set time--at least Hermione's doesn't. She simply lives that hour over--once she passes the point of time again when she used the Turner to go back, there's only one of her in the present and she can move forward. So, even if Snape did fool with a time turner, unless it's an Acme Brand Ultra Model that can both send him backwards *and* retrieve him, I doubt he'd be able to go too far back to do stuff. Unless he never came back.....ooooh, now *there's* a thought. Maybe he will go years into the past, do whatever, and die there. Which would explain why there's only one of him now. Ooooo. Still, he can't change the past....because it is the past, whatever he went back for is already done, whether his future self knows about it or not. That's the way the timestream seems to work in JKR's world, at least judging from how it worked with Buckbeak and the Patronus and all. --Amanda From rvotaw at i-55.com Sat Aug 10 02:58:20 2002 From: rvotaw at i-55.com (Richelle Votaw) Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2002 21:58:20 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Snape fulfilling his life debt References: Message-ID: <013201c24019$cce03140$f89ccdd1@istu757> No: HPFGUIDX 42378 Theresnothingtoit writes: > Does anyone here think Snape will finally be redeamed by fulfilling > his life debt to James by using the time turner. It seems a highly > *bangy* device that has only been used once and I would like to see > Snape redeamed in a very physical way. I think not. First of all, the time travel thing gets things all messed up. In more ways than one. That would be an awful lot of time to go back, an awful lot could go wrong, and Voldemort might end up more powerful than ever if he didn't get vaporized by the bouncing AK on Harry. Also, it gets quite confusing to read about the time turner and probably as difficult to write. Second, JKR has already said that we will never see a live Lily or James. That sort of settles things. Also, I think part of the whole sad tale of Snape is that he *can't* repay the life debt. Poor Snape will never truly be able to hate James in peace. James is dead, it can't be repaid. Harry's a close second, but he's still not James. Richelle From rvotaw at i-55.com Sat Aug 10 03:02:17 2002 From: rvotaw at i-55.com (Richelle Votaw) Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2002 22:02:17 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Wizard Photographs.. more thoughts on this =) References: <102.197329e2.2a85acb7@aol.com> Message-ID: <013301c2401a$56e571c0$f89ccdd1@istu757> No: HPFGUIDX 42379 > > Grey Wolf said: > > > > > We've actually have canon for this one: Creevy tells Harry in CoS > > that a normal muggle camera will serve, the picture only needs to be > > > developed with a special potion. Can't remember where in the book, > > > though. Sorry. Talia Dawn then wrote: > Where does he tell him this? I don't remember Colin saying anything about > cameras in CoS....but I have the American version. It's in the American version. Scholastic paperback edition, chapter six, page 96: He [Colin] was clutching what looked like an ordinary Muggle camera, and the moment Harry looked at him, he went bright red. A couple of paragraphs later: "and a boy in my dormitory said if I develop the film in the right potion, the pictures'll move." What I'd like to know is why is a Muggle camera allowed in Hogwarts? He can bring back proof of the wizard world! I don't quite understand that, considering he's bringing them back to show his Muggle father. Richelle From dicentra at xmission.com Sat Aug 10 03:02:55 2002 From: dicentra at xmission.com (dicentra63) Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 03:02:55 -0000 Subject: The Fateful Night (VERY long) In-Reply-To: <012501c24018$f8c2bd60$f89ccdd1@istu757> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42380 > Dicentra writes: > > > > > As far as being hell-bent on getting Peter, I don't think that was his > > first priority -- Harry was. When he no longer had Harry to worry > > about, he could go look for Peter. > Richelle: > I'm still confused. What exactly *did* Sirius plan to do with a 15 month old > baby? Who could he trust to leave him with? He had to leave Harry > someplace if he'd taken him, because he couldn't wait too long to go after > Peter. The trail would've gone cold. Dicentra again: I think that if he's got Harry, the vengeance thing is no longer his responsibility. There's still Lupin, and now that Sirius knows he's not the traitor, he can send the wolf after Peter. As for what he planned to do with little Harry, I imagine he planned to take him home and take care of him. He and the tyke already knew each other, and if you're a fully fledged wizard, you've probably got some spells up your sleeve to help you take care of a kid. And besides, he could always ask Arabella to help... :D --Dicentra, who doesn't doubt Sirius could have pulled the single-parent thing off From yrawen at ontheqt.org Sat Aug 10 03:19:09 2002 From: yrawen at ontheqt.org (yr awen) Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2002 23:19:09 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Wizard Photographs.. more thoughts on this =) References: <102.197329e2.2a85acb7@aol.com> <013301c2401a$56e571c0$f89ccdd1@istu757> Message-ID: <004201c2401c$b1ca91e0$68f0f718@kzo.chartermi.net> No: HPFGUIDX 42381 Richelle said: What I'd like to know is why is a Muggle camera allowed in Hogwarts? He can bring back proof of the wizard world! I don't quite understand that, considering he's bringing them back to show his Muggle father.<<<<<<<< I think Arthur said it best in CoS, when he explains about Muggle-baiting with magically shrinking keys -- a Muggle would never think to attribute vanishing keys to magic and will go out of their way to invent explanations more far-fetched than the truth; we're apparently experts at not seeing what's right under our noses If Colin's photographs should 'leak' to the Muggle world, they would probably be treated as something along the lines of the famous photo of the Loch Ness monster, or maybe as an example of modern experimental photography :-) Or maybe... I don't think it's ever mentioned, but maybe one needs to be a wizard/witch in order to see photographs move and paintings talk. In PS/SS, Harry has the impression that only he and Hagrid can see the Leaky Cauldron, presumably due to a series of anti-Muggle enchantments, and in GoF there are all sorts of anti-Muggle barriers set up, so we know that the wizarding community is definitely aware of the need for concealment. It makes sense that they'd want to control the distribution of media, so to speak, which might be difficult when dealing with something as pedestrian as photographs. Maybe one property of the developing potion is that its full effects can only be experienced, or appreciated, by a magically-gifted viewer. Or maybe Colin's allowed to have his camera on the condition that he doesn't try to stage an expose of wizard schooling practices. For myself, I'd be sort of weirded out if my print of Evard Munch's 'The Scream' started wailing and writhing around in the middle of the night. Scary. HF. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From gohana_chan02 at lycos.com Sat Aug 10 04:02:19 2002 From: gohana_chan02 at lycos.com (Hana) Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 00:02:19 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Wizard Photographs and Paintings Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42382 Kristin said: >>I would just assume that the photo captures your personality at the moment and the image mildly reacts to what is going on around it.<< How about this idea: a Muggle photograph is a moment frozen in time, and a wizard photograph is similar but not quite as frozen ;) It might be more like a small section of home video perhaps. Another idea is that in the past people have thought that photographs capture a part of the soul (thats why some people were afraid having their picture taken) maybe this is how the developing potion works a Muggle camera captures a part of the soul but it cant be activated without the developing potion. Kristin said: >>A more intersting question is the paintings...the paintings don;t merely smile and wave. They have personalities. The Fat Lady gets annoyed when she is bothered for no reason, she gets scared and embarrassed (PoA) and she has a friend, Violet (GoF0 who she gets drunk with off chocolate liquers at X-Mas. Sir Cadogan has a distinct personality as well. Why does a painting capture a complete interactive personality where as a photo is emrely a reflection of the person at the moment it was taken. You can not talk to the photos as you can paintings.<< It could be that the essence of a person is captured once the painting is finished perhaps the painter (being a wizard or witch) casts a charm that brings the painting to life when its done. It would be just like that person up until the moment the painting was finished. It would be quite interesting I think because if someone such as Sirius had his portrait done while in school and then Sirius himself encountered his portrait after 12 years in Azkaban Id say there would be a huge personality difference. The same would go for a child whos portrait was painted. Heres some more food for thought: I know the picture of Dumbledore on the card left in book one, but Ron said Well, you cant expect him to hang around all day (PS 77). Does this mean that the card pictures are showing the ~real~ picture? The photograph wouldnt have anything better to do after all. But what would this mean about the Chocolate Frog Cards of dead wizards and witches? Also, I cant remember off hand, but do the photographs actually ~do~ things other than what the subjects were doing at the time? --- --Hana __________________________________________________________ Win a First Class Trip to Hawaii to Vacation Elvis Style! http://r.lycos.com/r/sagel_mail/http://www.elvis.lycos.com/sweepstakes From fyredriftwood at yahoo.com Sat Aug 10 03:03:29 2002 From: fyredriftwood at yahoo.com (fyredriftwood) Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 03:03:29 -0000 Subject: Snape fulfilling his life debt In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42383 The brilliant Darrin wrote: > Snape certainly held off Quirrell's curse, but Harry was not removed > from danger until Hermione did her hotfoot routine, so at the very > most, Snape only gets an assist. > > If Snape has a real life debt, which I view as a kind of magical > covenant with James and his line, this doesn't seem to satisfy it. > > Darrin > -- If you say you're evil, chances are you aren't This has nothing to do with Darrin's post in the sense that it replies *exactly*, but I needed to reference someone so I could post my thoughts on this topic, but from a different angle ::smirk:: Snape has gone out of his way time and time again to save precious Harry Potter from mortal peril. We've seen him stand up to Sirius Black in an attempt to save his life, as well as considering that Potter wasn't the one to petrify Filch's cat in book 2. There's other instances with Snape performing a counter curse in book 1 so that Harry wouldn't fall off his broom, and much much more! It seems to me that for someone who "doesn't like Harry" that he seems to save him quite a bit. He may be hard on Potter time and time again, but I think he uses his bitterness as a way to save face. Like everyone else in the Potter World, Snape has a soft spot for Harry Potter---it's just deep, deep, deep inside. --Fyre Wood From fyredriftwood at yahoo.com Sat Aug 10 03:16:52 2002 From: fyredriftwood at yahoo.com (fyredriftwood) Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 03:16:52 -0000 Subject: Wizard Photographs.. more thoughts on this =) In-Reply-To: <004201c2401c$b1ca91e0$68f0f718@kzo.chartermi.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42384 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "yr awen" wrote: > Richelle said: > What I'd like to know is why is a Muggle camera allowed in Hogwarts? He can > bring back proof of the wizard world! I don't quite understand that, > considering he's bringing them back to show his Muggle father. Wait a second?! I thought that cameras, bugging devices, and all those electric things wouldn't work on the Hogwarts' Campus, as mentioned in the GoF by Hermione when she explains bugging to Harry and Ron. Plot hole? a Flint? Or does Creepy Colin Creevy use one that doesn't run on that sort of thing and is disposable? Or perhaps is the camera a Polariod? So many questions and not enough answers. What I wouldn't give to have an hour with JK Rowling to ask her random information. =) By the way, have any of you guys throughly discussed the characterization of Draco Malfoy? There is no FAQ list for him on the Lexicon website, and I'm only through the first 3000 messages in archives. Just wondering, because I've got a lot of theories on that boy. --Fyre Wood From miss_dumblydore at yahoo.com Sat Aug 10 03:49:15 2002 From: miss_dumblydore at yahoo.com (Heather Gauen) Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2002 20:49:15 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Wizard Photographs.. more thoughts on this =) In-Reply-To: <013301c2401a$56e571c0$f89ccdd1@istu757> Message-ID: <20020810034915.82280.qmail@web20415.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 42385 Richelle wrote: > What I'd like to know is why is a Muggle camera > allowed in Hogwarts? He can > bring back proof of the wizard world! I don't quite > understand that, > considering he's bringing them back to show his > Muggle father. Well, isn't Colin *himself* proof of the wizard world? His father already knows his son's a wizard and that he's at a magical school, so what difference would it make if he had pictures? And someone else (sorry, I deleted it before I copied the name) said it was like shrinking keys, that no one else would believe it if they saw it, so I think Colin's pretty much safe. :) Heather, who admires those who can flaunt their evilness:) __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? HotJobs - Search Thousands of New Jobs http://www.hotjobs.com From rvotaw at i-55.com Sat Aug 10 04:15:40 2002 From: rvotaw at i-55.com (Richelle Votaw) Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2002 23:15:40 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Draco Malfoy References: Message-ID: <002201c24024$96dc1040$279ccdd1@istu757> No: HPFGUIDX 42386 Fyre Wood writes: > By the way, have any of you guys throughly discussed the > characterization of Draco Malfoy? There is no FAQ list for him on the > Lexicon website, and I'm only through the first 3000 messages in > archives. Just wondering, because I've got a lot of theories on that > boy. I've been thinking about him a lot lately myself. I've just bought a latin dictionary and have been looking up various things in it from Harry Potter. I did learn a few things, and one of those is that draco, which can mean dragon, can also mean serpent or snake. Boy, only a true Slytherin would name their son snake! As for Malfoy, JKR said she made it up. That doesn't mean she didn't take parts of words and put them together, right? Anyway, I came up with "to wickedly disfigure or disgrace" for Malfoy. Hmm, there's something to think about. Either JKR accidentally got a great Latin meaning for Malfoy (lose translation yes, but it works as well as some of the spells latin meanings do), or it was intentional. Thoughts on that? Richelle From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Sat Aug 10 04:18:01 2002 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (bboy_mn) Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 04:18:01 -0000 Subject: Question: What's Molly's Real Name Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42387 I know I'm not suppose to post really short messages, but I was wondering if anyone was willing to speculate about Molly's real name? If Molly is a nickname, the what poper name is it typically a nickname for? Any thoughts? bboy_mn From coriolan_cmc at hotmail.com Sat Aug 10 04:19:05 2002 From: coriolan_cmc at hotmail.com (coriolan_cmc2001) Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 04:19:05 -0000 Subject: Go Have Malice (filk) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42388 I've sometimes done two filks in a single day, but this is the first time I've done three (And, yes, I do have a life, despite all appearances to the contrary) Go Have Malice (To the tune of White Rabbit) Dedicated to Catherine Coleman Hear the original at http://www.wtv-zone.com/ezegoinguy/Musicpage3.html THE SCENE: Potions' Dungeon. Enter SNAPE SNAPE One spleen makes it oranger, and one root's full of gall And the test on this I'll give you mandates your total recall Go have malice in the lecture hall And if they go losing house points and they know they're going to fail Tell 'em to look up texts on British bezoars and report ev'ry detail Go have malice, and their butts you'll nail When the bile all starts to boil and cauldrons start to thaw And the dungeon smells like the men's room, and Potter is breaking laws Go have malice, it's the last straw When magic skill in Potions Neville shows not a shred And Ron Weasley is speaking back talk And Hermione's blushing red Remember what you've always said Dunderheads! Dunderheads! - CMC HARRY POTTER FILKS http://home.att.net/~coriolan/hpfilks.htm From magicy2jai at cox.net Sat Aug 10 04:21:36 2002 From: magicy2jai at cox.net (Jai Marie) Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2002 23:21:36 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Question: What's Molly's Real Name References: Message-ID: <012101c24025$6b1f0d80$0500a8c0@domain316.local> No: HPFGUIDX 42389 I always thought Molly was a nickname for Mary, which could get very symbolic if you wanted it to be. Was it ever said somewhere that it is a nickname? Jai [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From conquistas2000 at yahoo.com Sat Aug 10 04:18:12 2002 From: conquistas2000 at yahoo.com (conquistas2000) Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 04:18:12 -0000 Subject: Voldemort's life debt to Lily (Theory) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42390 What if Voldemort owes Lily a life debt? And that is part of the reason that the curse rebounded back on Voldemort. We know that Voldemort is reluctant to kill Lily. What if part of that reluctance is because Voldemort owes Lily a life debt? Just like how Peter is reluctant of Voldemort using Harry (blood) for the "rebirthing" potion. Voldemort is still Tom Riddle during Lily's childhood (Pre-Hogwarts). It's possible that Lily "saved" Tom Riddle's life one way or another. The consequences of having a life debt are still unknown so far. It's possible that having a life debt prevents the person owing the life debt to kill person whom he/she owes the life debt to without some huge nasty consequences. Voldemort killed Lily, and the next spell he (Voldemort) casts rebounds back on him. In addition, now Peter will not be able to Harry, and now Voldemort is also unable to kill Harry, since Voldemort now have Peter's arm. Conquistas - Goes back to lurking From editor at texas.net Sat Aug 10 04:29:01 2002 From: editor at texas.net (Amanda Geist) Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2002 23:29:01 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Wizard Photographs.. more thoughts on this =) References: Message-ID: <002c01c24026$75115400$8a7e63d1@texas.net> No: HPFGUIDX 42391 > Wait a second?! I thought that cameras, bugging devices, and all > those electric things wouldn't work on the Hogwarts' Campus, as > mentioned in the GoF by Hermione when she explains bugging to Harry > and Ron. > > Plot hole? a Flint? Or does Creepy Colin Creevy use one that doesn't > run on that sort of thing and is disposable? Or perhaps is the camera > a Polariod? You sound so young. Some things actually work without electrical power. I myself have in my possession oooooold things like Brownies, which were in the first generations of personal cameras (i.e., for the non-professional user). I have a Nikon, the kind where you change the lenses yourself, set the aperture manually, etc. They don't use batteries (except there *is* one in the Nikon's light meter). It sounds to me like the type of camera Colin's using is one that is strictly mechanical, with no batteries to screw up. For one, he sounds like a true hobbyist photographer, for it is implied that he develops his own film--the emphasis in his comment on magical developer is not that he must develop them, but that this alternate way of developing produces moving results. I'd think there'd be more emphasis on him having to develop them himself, if this were something he'd never done. Secondly, as a parent, I'm not about to send a camera worth any kind of money off to school with an eleven-year-old. I'd buy him a secondhand one somewhere. An old one. Which would probably end up being simply mechanical. --Amanda, feeling old P.S.--Polaroids indeed have motors and must run on batteries or some type of electrical power--how do you think they spit those pictures out? A Polaroid wouldn't work at Hogwarts. From editor at texas.net Sat Aug 10 04:44:45 2002 From: editor at texas.net (Amanda Geist) Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2002 23:44:45 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Voldemort's life debt to Lily (Theory) References: Message-ID: <003e01c24028$a80710a0$8a7e63d1@texas.net> No: HPFGUIDX 42392 Conquistas started yet another life-debt theory off with > We know that Voldemort is reluctant to kill Lily. A L.O.O.N. speaks. Be careful. We don't know this. All we know for certain is that he said she didn't have to die. He could have been lying. He could have had any number of reasons. It is an *interpretation* only, that Voldemort is reluctant to kill Lily. :::cut back from close-up of Amanda talking. No, farther back. Even farther. Farther. There. Yeah, that thing we're all standing on. Isn't that *wild*? We've been standing on this for so long, we all thought it was the *ground*! But it's this immense red fish, with "Life Debt to James" written on it! And other smaller fish schooling around it, with people hopping around on *them,* too! Wow, that first fish is so big I'm amazed we even recognized it....I'm sure we all remembered we were standing on it, didn't we?:::: --Amanda From gohana_chan02 at lycos.com Sat Aug 10 04:53:50 2002 From: gohana_chan02 at lycos.com (Hana) Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 00:53:50 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Weasley family ages Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42393 I somehow missed most of this discussion, but the best source for facts so far seems to be the Lexicon since nothing is put there that isn't firmly based in canon, and according to that site, Charlie was born in 1967. That would put him at 27 or 28. Bill would be at least a year older than that. As for the idea of the last time Bill was at Hogwarts, he didn't say the last time he ~attended~ Hogwarts, just the last time he was there -- Percy was there after he left (Tri-Wizard Tournament) so there is no reason why Bill couldn't go there at some point as well. On reason he may have gone is that he's a curse breaker and they could have had something dangerous there that they needed his help on. The interesting thing about Bill being 28 or 29 is that he would have attended at least one year at Hogwarts with MWPP, Lily, and Snape (Bill in his first, them in their seventh). --- --Hana __________________________________________________________ Win a First Class Trip to Hawaii to Vacation Elvis Style! http://r.lycos.com/r/sagel_mail/http://www.elvis.lycos.com/sweepstakes From rvotaw at i-55.com Sat Aug 10 05:22:43 2002 From: rvotaw at i-55.com (Richelle Votaw) Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 00:22:43 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Voldemort's life debt to Lily (Theory) References: <003e01c24028$a80710a0$8a7e63d1@texas.net> Message-ID: <002901c2402d$f58475c0$75a1cdd1@istu757> No: HPFGUIDX 42394 > Conquistas started yet another life-debt theory off with > > > We know that Voldemort is reluctant to kill Lily. Amanda writes: > A L.O.O.N. speaks. Be careful. We don't know this. All we know for certain > is that he said she didn't have to die. He could have been lying. He could > have had any number of reasons. It is an *interpretation* only, that > Voldemort is reluctant to kill Lily. Okay, please explain what else you can interpret from this: Lily: "Not Harry, not Harry, please not Harry!" Voldemort: "Stand aside, you silly girl . . . stand aside, now . . . ." Lily: "Not Harry, please no, take me, kill me instead--Not Harry! Please . . . have mercy . . . have mercy. . . ." Lily: "Not Harry! Not Harry! Please--I'll do anything--" Voldemort: "Stand aside. Stand aside, girl!" Which brings up an interesting thought. Lily's plea of "have mercy." I suppose she could've just been stalling for time if she was completing a complex spell, though I can't understand how you can work on a spell and beg for mercy at the same time. Or she could have been a desperate mother crying out for mercy of her child. Or . . . something else. Unless Lily had a past history of some sort or another with Voldemort, the idea of her asking him to have mercy is about like asking a wall to make tea. This is the dark lord who thinks nothing of killing. Who has already killed many witches and wizards, and has plans for many more. Who has every intention of killing a 15 month old baby who is completely defenseless. Yet he stops for a moment before Lily. Who begs him to "have mercy." Richelle From Elvishooked at hotmail.com Sat Aug 10 05:55:02 2002 From: Elvishooked at hotmail.com (elvishooked) Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 05:55:02 -0000 Subject: Lockhart (Wizard Photographs.. more thoughts on this =) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42395 > > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "fyredriftwood" wrote: <<<....because I hate the CoS book (due to Lockhart, the plot being the same as book 1--sort of, etc etc).>>> CoS may not have the most exciting plot compared to the other 3 books - but it certainly gave me the best laugh - due to Lockhart :)) What a babe *LOL* - especially the duel between him and Snape was soooo funny. Looking very much forward to seeing *that* scene comes November... Lockharts' character's hilarious. He's SUCH a fool that I just can't help but love him. He was great fun to read about. "fyredriftwood" also wrote: <<>> It sure does! Inge From lilac_bearry at yahoo.com Sat Aug 10 06:39:36 2002 From: lilac_bearry at yahoo.com (Lilac) Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2002 23:39:36 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Snape fulfilling his life debt Message-ID: <20020810063936.38522.qmail@web40311.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 42396 Fyre Wood (any relation to Oliver?) said: <<<>>> I'm not so sure if it's a "soft spot... deep, deep, deep inside" as you say, Mr. Wood. IMO, it's that Snape knows that Harry is the one who will bring down Voldemort once and for all. Everyone is protecting Potter, and I am presuming that this is because Harry is "The One". So it's not a matter of soft spots or life-debt as much as it is that Harry is everyone's (including Snape's) "Savior", in a sense. Snape does have to save him quite a bit....he just doesn't have to like it or be nice to Harry because of it. Lilac :) (It would be kind of like Bin Laden having the cure for cancer. We wouldn't like needing his help, but think of all the people it would save. Oh...and THEN we would kill him.) ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~ "Tut, tut --- hardly any of you remembered that my favorite color is *lilac*. I say so in Year with the Yeti." --Gilderoy Lockhart, COS --------------------------------- Do You Yahoo!? HotJobs, a Yahoo! service - Search Thousands of New Jobs [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From lilac_bearry at yahoo.com Sat Aug 10 07:06:15 2002 From: lilac_bearry at yahoo.com (Lilac) Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 00:06:15 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [filk] Hold On Message-ID: <20020810070615.55516.qmail@web40303.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 42397 HOLD ON to the tune "Hold On" from the musical THE SECRET GARDEN MIDI link http://www.broadwaymidi.com/shows/secret_garden.html Dedicated to all the "Mollys" out there who want to comfort Harry. (SCENE ONE: Harry's parents at the graveyard after they have come out of his wand through Priori Incantantem) JAMES (speaking): Your mother's coming....she wants to see you....it will be all right....hold on.... LILY: What you have to do is finish what he has begun. I will tell you how... we'll distract him 'till you're gone. When the connection is broken, we will linger for just a short time. Then you've got to run, though terror is in your eyes. Get the portkey fast, it will take you back. Don't run until we say. We will hold him off to help you get away. Hold on! Hold on, we know it's hard to try. Hold on! Don't even ask how, when or why. Harry, hold on, and know that this is true: We love you and are proud of you. Harry...hold on. JAMES (speaking): Do it now, be ready to run, do it now... HARRY (speaking): NOW! (SCENE TWO: Harry gets back to Hogwarts, is saved from Crouch, and is now in the Headmaster's office with Siruis and Dumbledore) DUMBLEDORE: Though you feel your head is pounding to go through this night once more, 'Tis bad to postpone the pain, and so I must implore, Tell what happened and you'll show your courage one more time. Sleeping draught and peace we'll then give to you combined. (SCENE THREE: Later that night... Harry, overcome with emotion from the events of the evening, is being comforted by Molly Weasley in the hospital wing) MOLLY: Hold on, Hold on this night will soon go by Hold on, and do not be afraid to cry Harry, hold on, the fault's not yours today, listen to what I say, Harry -- You're safe, that's all that matters, forget the danger and the doom, rest in dreamless sleep, our vigil we'll keep we'll watch, protect and guard you safely in this room. (SCENE FOUR: Days Later: Dumbledore is addressing the school during the closing feast.) Cedric was killed by Voldemort; He's back and thinks he'll succeed, But we can not let him win this war, you see. What we do then is we choose between what's right and what's easy If we act right now, we'll thwart his plans, indeed. We must hold on! What will come will come, Be prepared for what we'll meet. ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~ "Tut, tut --- hardly any of you remembered that my favorite color is *lilac*. I say so in Year with the Yeti." --Gilderoy Lockhart, COS --------------------------------- Do You Yahoo!? HotJobs, a Yahoo! service - Search Thousands of New Jobs [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From psychchick04 at yahoo.com Sat Aug 10 07:48:29 2002 From: psychchick04 at yahoo.com (Jacqueline Hendries) Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 00:48:29 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Voldemort's life debt to Lily (Theory) In-Reply-To: <002901c2402d$f58475c0$75a1cdd1@istu757> Message-ID: <20020810074829.31098.qmail@web9203.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 42398 Richelle writes: > Which brings up an interesting thought. Lily's plea of "have mercy." I suppose she could've just been stalling for time if she was completing a complex spell, though I can't understand how you can work on a spell and beg for mercy at the same time. Or she could have been a desperate mother crying out for mercy of her child. Or . . . something else. Unless Lily had a past history of some sort or another with Voldemort, the idea of her asking him to have mercy is about like asking a wall to make tea. (Aloha says: I loved this line, by the way) This is the dark lord who thinks nothing of killing. Who has already killed many witches and wizards, and has plans for many more. Who has every intention of killing a 15 month old baby who is completely defenseless. Yet he stops for a moment before Lily. Who begs him to "have mercy." << My almost 4am thought: what if, it wasn't Lily's love DIRECTLY that caused the AK to rebound? Could it have been that she somehow made Voldemort the Cruel feel a teensy bit of remorse for what he was going to do, and in doing so screw up the AK? I know this theory probably doesn't hold water, really, but it's something that might be interesting to think about. I'm too tired/lazy right now to try backing it up with canon, but if anyone else has the inclination... just thought I'd throw it out there. :) ~ Aloha, who needs to go to bed RIGHT NOW ===== jackie04 at brandeis.edu __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? HotJobs - Search Thousands of New Jobs http://www.hotjobs.com From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Sat Aug 10 07:51:04 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 07:51:04 -0000 Subject: Wizard Photographs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42399 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Suzanne Chiles" wrote: > mariahisabel asked: > > > Anyone have and answers/ideas for me? > > It's magic. > > One of the things that puzzle me about this list is the insistence > that certain aspects of the wizarding world be logical, > understandable, and repeatable. > > I'd like to propose that magic in the Wizarding World can be > illogical and eccentric. > > Zo? Ummm... if it's "illogical and eccentric", how is it that the wizards and witches have to *study* it? If every piece of magic followed it's own rules -that is, there are no common or basic rules of magic- there would be no point in taking classes about how the magic works. To put it easier, an example: You didn't go to school to learn that 2+2 makes 4, but to learn why and from there deduce that 2+2=4, and any other possible adding. Since wizards and witches only spend seven years learning about magic, it is clear that there is no way they can learn *all* the magic developed in the last 6000 years. Thus, magic is logical, to a point (just as the English language is logical... to a point). There may be exceptions to the rules, but there *are* a series of subjacent rules that work. And I love this list because most of the time the people want to find them. Hope that helps, Grey Wolf From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Sat Aug 10 08:02:54 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 08:02:54 -0000 Subject: Wizard Photographs.. more thoughts on this =) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42400 Fyre Wood wrote: > Wait a second?! I thought that cameras, bugging devices, and all > those electric things wouldn't work on the Hogwarts' Campus, as > mentioned in the GoF by Hermione when she explains bugging to Harry > and Ron. > > Plot hole? a Flint? Or does Creepy Colin Creevy use one that doesn't > run on that sort of thing and is disposable? Or perhaps is the camera > a Polariod? > > --Fyre Wood No plot hole, and makes absolute sense, as long as Creevy is not using flash for his photos. We are told that electricity and magic don't mix, and thus that no electrial gadgets will work in Hogwarts. A camara does not need to be powered by electricity, just needs mechanical parts. There is no reson for it not to work. On a sideline, I don't think a polaroid would work: they do, indeed, need batteries, so watever they need them for wouldn't work. However, if you managed the polaroid to work, you'd have to have the magical developing potion right at hand, since the photo is almost developed by the time it comes out. Hope that helps, Grey Wolf From crana at ntlworld.com Fri Aug 9 22:42:07 2002 From: crana at ntlworld.com (rosie) Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2002 23:42:07 +0100 Subject: Hermione / Buckbeak Message-ID: <000d01c24045$fc3a5e80$9e3768d5@xxx> No: HPFGUIDX 42401 OK, so this is so far-fetched you would not believe it... but I have noticed some strange parallels between Hermione and Buckbeak (bear in mind how little we know about Beaky). Look at the name to start off with. Buckbeak. One of Hermione's distinguishing features (prior to GOF anyway)? Her over-large teeth. Her buck teeth, in fact. And what do Hippogriffs have instead of teeth? You got it, a beak. Hermione's pretty proud as well. She'll never admit she's wrong, in Ron's words (PoA). Notable feature of a Hippogriff? Their pride. And if you need any further proof, I give you this. Who surprises Ron and Harry by slapping Malfoy in GoF for being rude? Hermione. Remind you of anyone? Hmmmmm. Rosie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Sat Aug 10 08:23:59 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 08:23:59 -0000 Subject: Wizard Photographs and Paintings In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42402 Hana wrote: > Also, I can't remember off hand, but do the photographs actually ~do~ things other than what the subjects were doing at the time? > > --- > --Hana Yep, the photo!Lockharts used net-thingies in their heads (sorry, haven't the faintiest idea of what they're called in English), and I very much doubt that Lockhart would have allowed himself to be taken a photograph while caring for his hair. Hope that helps, Grey Wolf, who is sorry for the one-liner From crana at ntlworld.com Sat Aug 10 08:35:56 2002 From: crana at ntlworld.com (rosie) Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 09:35:56 +0100 Subject: Colin's camera - References: Message-ID: <006001c24048$f2deb5e0$9e3768d5@xxx> No: HPFGUIDX 42403 Fyre Wood said: "Wait a second?! I thought that cameras, bugging devices, and all those electric things wouldn't work on the Hogwarts' Campus, as mentioned in the GoF by Hermione when she explains bugging to Harry and Ron. Plot hole? a Flint? Or does Creepy Colin Creevy use one that doesn't run on that sort of thing and is disposable? Or perhaps is the camera a Polariod?" I just thought of that myself. Even a disposable or Polaroid camera usually takes batteries. You have to go back a number of years before cameras didn't use electricity, don't you?. I can't really see Colin clutching a home-made pinhole camera either... Um. Um. Maybe one of his friends "magicked" it for him so it will now run on magic not batteries (the same guy who suggested he develop it in a special potion?). Amanda pointed out that Mr Creevy would likely give his son a cheapo camera meaning an old mechanical one, but you can get battery-powered, flash cameras pretty cheap here, so why bother? New idea: Harry didn't get the full Muggle introduction to Hogwarts because he was not Muggle-born and his adoptive family (Petunia) were meant to know about the WW. Perhaps if you are truly Muggle-born like Colin, you get someone coming to your house (bit like Hagrid's visit to Harry) to talk to you and your parents, you get to write to someone and ask lots of questions, you get more detailed information about the castle and so on. Then Mr Creevy could have asked "My son's a really keen photographer, is that ok?" and either his advisor person says "As long as it doesn't use batteries" - he goes and digs up his old one from the attic, or says "Sure, just let me reconfigure it" and somehow magically changes it to run off magic instead. It was described as looking like an "ordinary Muggle camera" I believe, not "an ancient rusty old camera", so I incline to my magic camera theory :) I wonder what cameras people like Rita Skeeter's photographer use. On a related-sort-of note, you know where Mr Weasley (I think) describes the security around the QWC in GOF, and says "there are some places Muggles can't penetrate", making reference to Diagon Alley... what does he mean by this? He clearly can't mean they physically cannot enter at all, as Mr & Mrs Weasley do. They can't enter without the help from a witch or wizard, perhaps? Ideas? _________________________ Bboy_mn wrote: "I know I'm not suppose to post really short messages, but I was wondering if anyone was willing to speculate about Molly's real name? If Molly is a nickname, the what poper name is it typically a nickname for?" Believe it or not (over in the UK at least) Molly comes from Mary as the most common origin of that nickname (and Polly as well). It seems to be a nickname that can come from many names though, like Millie. My sister's name is Amelia, she's called Millie, it's also short for Millicent, and a girl who went missing here was called Amanda, nicknamed Millie. Molly works in the same way I think, but if you trace it back I believe it does come from Mary for the most part. Nowadays kids might be given that as a name just by itself but I don't think this was so common in the past. Rosie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From heidit at netbox.com Sat Aug 10 10:19:39 2002 From: heidit at netbox.com (heidi tandy) Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 03:19:39 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Draco Malfoy In-Reply-To: <002201c24024$96dc1040$279ccdd1@istu757> Message-ID: <20020810101939.13024.qmail@web9506.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 42404 --- Richelle Votaw wrote: > Real-To: "Richelle Votaw" > > Fyre Wood writes: > > > By the way, have any of you guys throughly > discussed the > > characterization of Draco Malfoy? There is no FAQ > list for him on the > > Lexicon website, and I'm only through the first > 3000 messages in > > archives. Just wondering, because I've got a lot > of theories on that > > boy. > That FAQ is my responsibility and I do hope that in the next FAQ upload, there should be something uploaded. Don't go through the messages yourself - you'll never ever make it. I can't guarantee that the FAQ will be complete when uploaded, as there's been a lot of recent discussion of him here - you might be better off using the search engine and going through the recent posts instead of starting at the begining. ===== 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!? HotJobs - Search Thousands of New Jobs http://www.hotjobs.com From jodel at aol.com Sat Aug 10 08:27:50 2002 From: jodel at aol.com (jodel at aol.com) Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 04:27:50 EDT Subject: the Weasleys Message-ID: <107.1622211f.2a862886@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 42406 I tend to agree with Penny's exploration of the subject in the main. Arthur & Molly's ages are still up in the air, although her suposition (late 40s/early 50s) seems pretty likely. So far Rowling hasn't given us anything like an actual date to hang the exact ages of their particular generation on. My own gut feeling tends toward the likelyhood of Arthur being just about 50 and Molly anything up to 3 years younger. Molly and Arthur were almost engaged in establishing their family all during the first war with Voldemort (Ginny was born the year of Voldemort's fall, after all) and I've always felt, from the extremely "personal" tone to their hostility that Arthur and Lucius Malfoy were the leading Gryffandor/Slytherin rivals of their time, (was Arthur Weasley another Hogwarts Head Boy?) much as Draco and Harry are now. And as James and Snape were in the Marauder's era. (Another reason why I don't believe for a minute that Lucius was at Hogwarts at the same time as Snape. Snape would not have been able to conduct that kind of public rivalry if there was a Malfoy in residence. The Malfoys do not LIKE for other people, not even other Slytherins, to draw more attention than they do. If anyone is going to carry on a public feud with a prominent Gryffandor while a Malfoy is at Hogwarts, it will be the Malfoy. After all, the Malfoys do not take second place to anyone. At least not at Hogwarts... ) It is dificult to extrapolate Molly and Arthur's ages without knowing what ages the older two boys are. And this is also a bit awkward to determine. I don't offer any simple justification for the conflict between Bill's statement that he had not been back at Hogwarts for 5 years, which was made three years after Oliver Wood's statement that Gryffandor hadn't won the Quidditch Cup for 7 years when Charlie was the Seeker, given that Bill is the elder of the two (Bill and Charlie). But Ginny's statement about Bill at Hogwarts narrows the gap of possibilities even further. Unless, as someone suggested, Charlie was only Seeker during his first years on the team, having grown too stocky to excell at that position once he got his growth. But Bill made his "5 years" statement at the beginning of Harry's 4th year, which makes one suspect that Bill's last visit might have been after his own graduation in any case. So. Kicking the statements that we DO have around; Seven years before Harry and Ron's first year, Charlie was the Gryffandor Seeker. I doubt that a Quidditch head like Wood would have been mistaken in this. When he was Seeker, he would have been at least a 2nd year (given that Harry was the youngest team member in a hundred years when he was drafted for the team in his 1st year). And, since that year was the LAST year that the Gryffs took the Cup, it was amost -- but not absolutely -- certain that it was the last year that Charlie played that position. (Although it is just as possible that he COULD have earned his "legendary" status as a Seeker through brilliant play in games that Gryffandor did not win. I am surprised that no one seems to have mentioned this, but I've not been on the list long, and this could be an old thread.) Taking the suggestion mentioned above; that Charlie may not have played Seeker after he got his growth, but went on to play some other position (Keeper?) and to captain the team for his later Hogwarts years. If we could tentatively say that Charlie graduated the year immediately before Harry and Ron started Hogwarts. This would have made that last year that Gryffrandor took the cup Charlie's 2nd year. (And suggests that Charlie had his growth spurt at about age 13 which is awfully early but possible.) In this scenareo, Bill could very well have graduated the year before Charlie, five years before Harry and Ron's fourth year. Making him 19 or 20 at the time of PS/SS as Penny stated. This particular scenareo compresses the births of the Weasley kids into the shortest possible time frame that fits the known facts, with one year between Bill and Charlie, and three between Charlie and Percy. And with nine years between Bill and Ginny, Arthur and Molly's marriage would have been at least ten years before Voledmort's fall, but possibly not a great deal more than that. Arthur and Molly seem the type to have been more likely to delay the wedding until they could afford to think of starting a family, than to marry and then delay children, until they could afford them. This would put the lowest end of Arthur and Molly's ages at something like 40 around the time the series begins. This seems a little too low. But it does *just* fit with the latest likely marriage date for Molly and Arthur, if someone has a theory that requires it. The Willow was planted (after Molly's lime at Hogwarts) just about the year that Voldemort began his first rise to power. Which acto Dumbledore was 11 years before he fell. Working backwards from one of Rowling's statements in an interview which I think took place around the time Goblet came out, Snape at that point is 35 or 36. At that point Harry is only a couple of months shy of 15. Therefore Snape was 21 or 22 at the time of Voldemort's fall. We already know that Snape was in the same academic year as James Potter, and more to the point, Remus Lupin. At the latest, the Whomping Willow was planted the summer before Remus Lupin started his first year at Hogwarts. Voldemort's fall took place 4-5 years after Snape and the Marauders graduated from Hogwarts. Therefore the Willow was planted some 11-12 years before Voldemort's fall, which took place late in the year that Ginny was born. I suggest that Arthur and Molly certainly got together at Hogwarts, but that Arthur is a year or two the elder, giving him a year or two to establish himself and to begin to advance far enough in his career to be able to contemplate supporting a wife and family by the time Molly graduated. But there is no certainty that they DID marry as soon as Molly finished school. Events may have intervened. I'd opt for a 2-3 year lag between Molly's graduation and the wedding at least. Possibly up to 5. But there does seem to be a good deal of probability of the wedding having taken place around the time the Willow was planted. In the course of the series, we have also been handed the suggestion of a rather distressing backstory concerning the Weasleys. Early in the first book, Malfoy makes some slur about always being able to recognize the Weasleys by their shabbiness, red hair and large families. Malfoy is only eleven at that point and there is no indication that he has ever met any of the Weasleys personally. He got that comment somewhere, and the most likely view is that he was parroting his father (yet another indication of a shared history between Arthur and Lucius). And yet, Harry has spent part of almost every summer since then at the Burrow and has never met any Weasley apart from Molly and Arthur and their children. And whatever mentions of cousins that we have had from Ron are rather few and far between. I tend to think that the Weasley clan may be one on the ones which took heavy casualties in the last war, and it is his own family that Arthur is trying to recreate. I rather think that they quite deliberately intended to start their family immediately, once the knot was tied. And although we may never actually get any info on the subject, there may have been a lost infant, or, more probably a miscarage in that 3-year gap between Charlie and Percy (assuming the compressed birth years scenareo). And I also think that one of the reasons that Arthur's extended family were targeted so heavily is that they are known to be close to Dumbledore. And not just on a philosophical or political plane. I also suspect that there is a family connection somewhere. Given the fact that both Arthur and Albus are upholders of the concept of meritocracy, neither is likely to refer to it, or would dream of trading upon it, and the kids may not even know it exists (I postulate that the connection is at least four generations back from Arthur). But you will notice that Molly and Arthur are some of the very first people that Albus turns to when it is known that Voldemort has returned. And the degree, even if not the type of eccentricity displayed by both Albus and Arthur (as well as physical descriptions of Dumbledore when compared to that of various Weasleys leads me to suspect that his mother may have been one) is also pretty suggestive. And if this is the case, from Voldemort's point of view, what would you expect to be his answer to any family which has produced the likes of Albus Dumbledore? -JOdel From bard7696 at aol.com Sat Aug 10 11:57:06 2002 From: bard7696 at aol.com (darrin_burnett) Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 11:57:06 -0000 Subject: Snape fulfilling his life debt In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42407 Fyre wood wrote: > > > Snape has gone out of his way time and time again to save precious > Harry Potter from mortal peril. We've seen him stand up to Sirius > Black in an attempt to save his life, as well as considering that > Potter wasn't the one to petrify Filch's cat in book 2. There's other instances with Snape performing a counter curse in book 1 so that Harry wouldn't fall off his broom, and much much more! > I've got less than "much, much more" in the attempts of Snape to save Harry's life. First, I'd like to say I'm not totally sold on the "Snape owes James (or Lily, my own pet theory in a concept I haven't bought yet) a life- debt." At least one on the level of Pettigrew-Harry. Then why would Snape be tortured by what James did for him? Personal honor. I get on Snape's case a lot, but I believe he's got a sense of honor that's different from most people's. That could include his own reckoning of debts, whether there is a magical covenant or not. Further, there is a difference between having a person's life in your hands and sparing it, such as Harry did for Wormtail, and yanking someone out of danger. With one word from Harry, Wormtail is dead. James kept Snape from going to a dangerous place. The odds are very good Snape would have died when he met a fully-grown werewolf, but we are talking about a kid who knew more curses than any seventh-year too. It's possible Snape could have dealt with it on his own and escaped. Now, on to the attempts: SS/PS: The broom incident. Again, Harry isn't completely out of danger until Hermione comes along. Snape didn't do this alone. At best, he gets an assist. Probably not enough to satisfy either a magical convenant or his own code. CoS: What exactly? He tried to scare the bejeezus out of Harry with the Snake (or, for eternal DISHWASHER-ites, tried to spur Harry's inner Parselmouth.) You could argue he showed concern over Harry and Ron after they wrecked the car, but he didn't have the chance to do anything to save Harry. And in the big showdown with the basilisk, Snape really didn't play a huge part in that. PoA: Raced in to save Harry from Sirius. Ah, but poor, poor, Severus. Harry wasn't in any danger from Sirius. The last thing Sirius wanted to do was hurt Harry. And Snape never lifted a finger to help Harry deal with the dementors, his real enemies throughout the story. He did try to bully Harry out of Hogsmeade, and snidely told Harry that everyone, from the minister of magic on down, was trying to keep him safe. But, Snape appeared to get distracted when he found the map. GoF: He probably tried to keep Harry out of the tournament, but he failed and besides, trying to keep him out of the path of some undetermined danger seems lame. I think it needs to be a specific threat. So, to sum up: If Snape is in life-debt to James (or Lily) and is trying to work it off by saving Harry, he still has a ways to go. Darrin -- Likes being called brilliant, but I'm afraid my head will swell up like Aunt Marge From rsteph1981 at yahoo.com Sat Aug 10 04:30:52 2002 From: rsteph1981 at yahoo.com (rsteph1981) Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 04:30:52 -0000 Subject: Weasley family ages In-Reply-To: <008301c23dd4$109422e0$68f0f718@kzo.chartermi.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42408 Well, I believe Charlie is seven years older than Percy. In PoA, it says it's been seven years since they won the Quiddich cup, and it's often been said that they haven't won since Charlie was seeker. Therefore, Charlie is seven years older than Percy. Bill could be any number of years older than Charie, but I'd guess one or two. Anyway, that's the conclusion we've come to elsewhere. Not sure if it's 100% accurate. Just in case you're curious; I got this from the WAIL board at sugarquill.net and they sourced the lexicon. Rebecca From rusalka at ix.netcom.com Sat Aug 10 12:28:55 2002 From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants) Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 12:28:55 -0000 Subject: The Fateful Night (VERY long) In-Reply-To: <012501c24018$f8c2bd60$f89ccdd1@istu757> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42409 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Richelle Votaw" wrote: > Dicentra writes: > > > > > As far as being hell-bent on getting Peter, I don't think that was his > > first priority -- Harry was. When he no longer had Harry to worry > > about, he could go look for Peter. > > I'm still confused. What exactly *did* Sirius plan to do with a 15 month old > baby? Who could he trust to leave him with? He had to leave Harry > someplace if he'd taken him, because he couldn't wait too long to go after > Peter. The trail would've gone cold. Who could have been trusted? Lupin? > Sirius must've had his doubts about him to begin with. Dumbledore? How > would he have gotten him to Dumbledore? Put him in daycare? I hardly think > so. If Sirius was just being concerned for Harry's safety he was sure being > short sighted. A baby's a big responsibility, especially if you've no one > else to help, and you're going to have to go after a traitor very shortly. > Of course it was short-sighted, we're talking about Sirius here. He doesn't go in much for careful long-range planning at the best of times. And here he's just had the biggest shock of his life, and is all grief-stricken and overwhelmed. He wasn't thinking about the logistics of going after Peter, or the responsibilites of single parenthood, or anything else beyond the fact that James and Lily were dead and he had promised to take care of their child. He was following his impulses, as Sirius is wont to do. Marina rusalka at ix.netcom.com From pennylin at swbell.net Sat Aug 10 12:42:53 2002 From: pennylin at swbell.net (Penny Linsenmayer) Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 07:42:53 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: the Weasleys References: <107.1622211f.2a862886@aol.com> Message-ID: <02b301c2406b$72299000$4f5ffea9@cq5hs01> No: HPFGUIDX 42410 Hi -- Jodel: <<<<<>>>>>> Just a clarification -- this was not Penny's exploration -- it is one of the group FAQs that hasn't been uploaded to the FAQ site yet. It also wasn't compiled/written by me -- as I said in my intro to the subject, Simon Branford wrote it. I happened to have a draft in Word on my computer from where I edited it for consistency last summer, so I just cut & pasted the relevant section on the family ages from it. Just wanted to clarify that, since Simon should certainly get the credit! <<<<<<>>>>>>>> This is actually Penny talking now (my opinions): I've always assumed that Bill could have come back to Hogwarts for a Quidditch match, to attend an alumni dinner, to meet with the faculty on something related to his job at Gringotts or any number of other reasons -- I think it's illogical to conclude that the only interpretation of his statement is that he graduated 5 yrs before. In fact, that makes *no* sense. 5 years earlier is only *one* year before Harry et al. arrived at Hogwarts, is it not? Charlie is at least one year younger than Bill. So, if Bill's statement is taken to mean that it's been 5 years since he graduated, then Charlie should have been a 7th year during Harry's 1st year. So, I completely dismiss the notion that Bill meant it had been 5 years since he graduated. He's just saying it's been 5 years since he was last there. I also think Ginny's statement makes no sense. She's 11 when she makes that statement. At that point, Bill had been gone *at least* 3 years (and that's only if you assume Charlie graduated the year before Harry arrived, which I also think is faulty on a number of levels). So, if true, then Bill had first come to Hogwarts 10 years before -- i.e., when Ginny was one year old. She has no memory then. Jodel: <<<<<>>>>>> Actually this is an old thread, and that fact has been mentioned by several others before (including me). Krum is a legendary seeker, even though his team didn't always win after all. Jodel: <<<<<>>>> Actually, the FAQ argues several different possibilities, only one of which is that Bill is 19/20 at the time of PS/SS. My (Penny's) personal view has always been that Bill is 26/27 at the time of GoF, so I don't fall into the "Bill is 19/20 at time of SS" category at all. :--) I think the preponderance of evidence is that Bill & Charlie are older and that there's a fairly large gap between Charlie & Percy, suggesting all sorts of possibilities & explanations. But, it's pretty clear that JKR has been very inconsistent, and while I do suspect, she knows the answer, I'm not at all sure that she's thought through the implications of these various "clues" or statements. I too think there might be a family connection of some sort between Dumbledore & the Weasleys. We know that Dumbledore had auburn hair in his youth, and I suspect that isn't a throw-away reference. Penny [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From fiatincantatum at attbi.com Sat Aug 10 12:56:48 2002 From: fiatincantatum at attbi.com (Fiat Incantatum) Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 08:56:48 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Wizard Photographs.. more thoughts on this =) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3D54D550.5024.F8213E2@localhost> No: HPFGUIDX 42411 On 10 Aug 2002 at 8:02, grey_wolf_c wrote: > No plot hole, and makes absolute sense, as long as Creevy is not using > flash for his photos. We are told that electricity and magic don't mix, > and thus that no electrial gadgets will work in Hogwarts. A camara does > not need to be powered by electricity, just needs mechanical parts. > There is no reson for it not to work. and flash *bulbs* were around a long time before battery powered flashes as well, and flash powder before that. Granted, both of those things require a spark to ignite, but since both fire and lightning work at Hogwarts, I suspect that generating that much primitive "electricity" would not be a problem. Fiat, who happens to have *working* all-mechanical cameras with real flashbulbs, non-rusty, non-dusty thankyouverymuch and perfectly fine for taking lovely photographs, except for the lack of flash, since flashbulbs are one-use items. We were *not* banging rocks together for light until the advent of portable electricity, kids. -- 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 Ali at zymurgy.org Sat Aug 10 13:21:16 2002 From: Ali at zymurgy.org (alhewison) Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 13:21:16 -0000 Subject: The "Missing 24-hours" - an alternative take Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42412 At the moment there is a 24-hour period after the Potters' deaths in which the movements of the main protagonists are unaccounted for. What if for Harry and Hagrid that 24-hour period does not exist? So far we have seen a Time Turner take its users backwards. This opens up the possibility of them going forwards as well. The plot seems to work if the following scenario happened: Dumbeldore realises that the Potters are dead and Harry has survived (through means of magical communication yet to be revealed). Dumbledore sends Hagrid to rescue Harry. I personally think that Hagrid can apparate, as he appeared to disappear very quickly after Harry's very first day with him. Dumbledore orders Hagrid to get Harry, turn the Time Turner forward by 24 Hours and then meet him in Privet Drive. Hagrid meets McGonagall just before leaving on his mission. At this stage all he may know is that he has to go to Godric Hollow and rescue Harry. He may not know all the details. His loyalty to Dumbledore is such that he would not need to know much before acting. Equally, timing would have been critical. He may have had enough time to say "see Dumbledore at Privet Drive in 24-hours if you want more detail", before leaving. Harry and Hagrid would then not exist for this 24 hours period. It takes Harry out of a dangerous period of time whilst Dumbledore can be setting up his protection. This period of time would have been dangerous for Harry, as presumably at this stage the Death Eaters would not have known the fate of their leader, or if they had, would still have been bent on quick vengeance against his surprise "slayer". Ali From elfundeb at comcast.net Sat Aug 10 01:27:58 2002 From: elfundeb at comcast.net (elfundeb) Date: Fri, 09 Aug 2002 21:27:58 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: the Weasleys References: <107.1622211f.2a862886@aol.com> Message-ID: <008201c2400d$291fd620$3a3b3244@arlngt01.va.comcast.net> No: HPFGUIDX 42413 JOdel said, regarding Charlie Weasley's Quidditch career: When he was Seeker, he would have been at least a 2nd year (given that Harry was the youngest team member in a hundred years when he was drafted for the team in his 1st year). And, since that year was the LAST year that the Gryffs took the Cup, it was amost -- but not absolutely -- certain that it was the last year that Charlie played that position. (Although it is just as possible that he COULD have earned his "legendary" status as a Seeker through brilliant play in games that Gryffandor did not win. [snip] Taking the suggestion mentioned above; that Charlie may not have played Seeker after he got his growth, but went on to play some other position (Keeper?) and to captain the team for his later Hogwarts years. If we could tentatively say that Charlie graduated the year immediately before Harry and Ron started Hogwarts. This would have made that last year that Gryffrandor took the cup Charlie's 2nd year. I think canon strongly suggests that Charlie never played any position other than Seeker. In PS/SS ch. 10, Oliver Wood tells Harry at the end of his first practice, "I wouldn't be surprised if you turn out better than Charlie Weasley, and he could have played for England if he hadn't gone off chasing dragons." To me, this sentence is a comparison of Harry as a Seeker to Charlie as a Seeker that was good enough to have played for England. After all, Wood hasn't seen Harry do anything except fly and catch golf balls pretending to be snitches. He has no other basis for comparison. It's highly unlikely that Charlie could have played Seeker for England if he had switched positions early on, or left the team because he had grown too stocky. I suppose there is a slim possibility that Charlie continued to play Seeker after Gryffindor last won the Cup, but Fred tells Harry (PS/SS ch. 9) that "we haven't won since Charlie *left*," again a strong implication that Gryffindor was highly successful at Quidditch as long as Charlie was there. Yes, I think the Lexicon is absolutely correct; I believe there is an enormous age gap, notwithstanding Ginny's statement at the end of CoS that she's looked forward to coming to Hogwarts ever since Bill came. (Regardless of the actual age gap, that statement cannot be correct because Ginny cannot possibly have remembered when Bill went to Hogwarts.) And I believe that at some point in the series the explanatory Weasley backstory will be told. But that won't be for a long time, leaving us with years to engage in delicious speculation. Debbie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Sat Aug 10 14:48:35 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 14:48:35 -0000 Subject: The "Missing 24-hours" - an alternative take In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42414 Ali wrote: > > At the moment there is a 24-hour period after the Potters' deaths in > which the movements of the main protagonists are unaccounted for. > What if for Harry and Hagrid that 24-hour period does not exist? So > far we have seen a Time Turner take its users backwards. This opens > up the possibility of them going forwards as well. The plot seems to > work if the following scenario happened: > > Dumbeldore realises that the Potters are dead and Harry has survived > (through means of magical communication yet to be revealed). > > Dumbledore sends Hagrid to rescue Harry. I personally think that > Hagrid can apparate, as he appeared to disappear very quickly after > Harry's very first day with him. > > Dumbledore orders Hagrid to get Harry, turn the Time Turner forward > by 24 Hours and then meet him in Privet Drive. Hagrid meets > McGonagall just before leaving on his mission. At this stage all he > may know is that he has to go to Godric Hollow and rescue Harry. He > may not know all the details. His loyalty to Dumbledore is such that > he would not need to know much before acting. Equally, timing would > have been critical. He may have had enough time to say "see > Dumbledore at Privet Drive in 24-hours if you want more detail", > before leaving. > > Harry and Hagrid would then not exist for this 24 hours period. It > takes Harry out of a dangerous period of time whilst Dumbledore can > be setting up his protection. This period of time would have been > dangerous for Harry, as presumably at this stage the Death Eaters > would not have known the fate of their leader, or if they had, would > still have been bent on quick vengeance against his surprise > "slayer". > > Ali I'd like to see what canon, if any, you're basing yourself in, since right now the theory is so shacky I cannot buy it. You mention that the fact that Time-Turners exist opens the possibility of traveling into the future, but I don't buy it; in fact, notice that the time-turners *only* allow returning into the past, to live through a time you've already been through a second time. It is *not* a time-travel device. You cannot go back 3000 years, take a look around and go back to your time. If you go back that far, you're stuck because there is no way the time turner will take you into the future. Appart from the time turner device, too, you give no further evidence of the ability of Hagrid to use the powerful magic that I feel would be needed to catapult him, a baby and a motorcycle into the future. Notice that Dumbledore sent Hagrid, who excells in taking care of magical creatures -often dengerous, too. Why him? Why not Snape, or even McGonagall? Well, for one, Hagrid knows how to take care of a baby. For 24 hours, or longer if need be. AND he knows how to hide: he has spent his entire lifetime hiding his own nature from everybody else, not just from muggles. I don't think Dumbledore could pay Snape enough to change diapers, and McGonagall looks like an old stick to me - on a side note, notice she herself doubts Hagrid was a good idea, but *she doesn't propose anyone else*: no "I would've been a better option" or "don't you think Mrs. Fig could have done that?". The fact that Dumbledore selects the least magical person of his side is revealing: he's not trusting Harry to magic, but to the care of a person. I wouldn't use any sort of magic around a being that just make an AK rebound, and I'd imagine that Dumbledore wouldn't chance it either. If the AK goes awry, who knows what could happen with spells that *can* be blocked? No, I don't see how your theory can hold water, especially when we've got a much more sensible theory: Hagrid went into hiding and kept the baby low-key during that day someplace he knew the DEs (or anyone else, for that matter) wouldn't look for him. I'd say his father's old house, or some island far from the coast, or some other place where he could find feed for the baby without risking being seen. Hope that helps, Grey Wolf From elfundeb at comcast.net Sat Aug 10 02:53:03 2002 From: elfundeb at comcast.net (elfundeb) Date: Fri, 09 Aug 2002 22:53:03 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] The "Missing 24-hours" - an alternative take References: Message-ID: <000f01c24019$0c2b0060$3a3b3244@arlngt01.va.comcast.net> No: HPFGUIDX 42415 Ali suggested that Harry and Hagrid might have used a Time Turner during the Missing 24 Hours: What if for Harry and Hagrid that 24-hour period does not exist? So far we have seen a Time Turner take its users backwards. This opens up the possibility of them going forwards as well. Dumbledore orders Hagrid to get Harry, turn the Time Turner forward by 24 Hours and then meet him in Privet Drive. [snip part about meeting McGonagall on his way out and telling her that his orders were to get Harry and to take him to Privet Dr.] Harry and Hagrid would then not exist for this 24 hours period. It takes Harry out of a dangerous period of time whilst Dumbledore can be setting up his protection. A clever idea, but I believe it cannot work. The Time Turner might theoretically have the ability to take a person to the future (though Hermione states that she only used it to go backwards and repeat hours) but it does not mean that the person no longer exists in the present. The effect of the Time-Turner is that for the period of time that the Time-Turner is being used, for example, 9-midnight at the end of PoA, the person who used the Time-Turner has a double existence, as shown by the fact that Harry and Hermione 1 saw Harry2 across the lake casting the Patronus, and HH2 saw everything HH1 did. So if Hagrid used a Time-Turner to take himself and Harry to the future (and I'm not sure how this would work based on the principles we've seen used in PoA) there would be two Harrys and Hagrid's during that period. The Time-Turner principles we've seen would not allow Harry and Hagrid to skip over time. (For that matter, if it works going forward the same way it works going backward, turning it forward would simply create Hagrid/Harry2 at that moment who would lead parallel lives with Hagrid/Harry1 for the period of time the Time-Turner had been set for, then merge again at the end of that period.) Debbie who really needs a Time-Turner these days [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From psychchick04 at yahoo.com Sat Aug 10 15:14:32 2002 From: psychchick04 at yahoo.com (Jacqueline Hendries) Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 08:14:32 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: the Weasleys In-Reply-To: <008201c2400d$291fd620$3a3b3244@arlngt01.va.comcast.net> Message-ID: <20020810151432.41888.qmail@web9207.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 42416 I'm in need of clarification. I know that the Gryffindors haven't won the House Cup in seven years, and that they haven't won the Quidditch cup since Charlie Weasley was seeker. However, are we sure that they haven't won the Quidditch Cup in seven years? As the Slytherins show in SS, it *is* possible to win the Quidditch Cup but not the House Cup. And, if this happened to the Gryffindors, it's possible that Charlie Weasley is fewer than fourteen years older than Ron. I don't have my books in front of me, but... I'd love to have this checked out. :) ~ Aloha --- elfundeb wrote: > JOdel said, regarding Charlie Weasley's Quidditch career: > When he was > Seeker, he would have been at least a 2nd year (given that Harry > was the > youngest team member in a hundred years when he was drafted for the > team in > his 1st year). And, since that year was the LAST year that the > Gryffs took > the Cup, it was amost -- but not absolutely -- certain that it was > the last > year that Charlie played that position. (Although it is just as > possible that > he COULD have earned his "legendary" status as a Seeker through > brilliant > play in games that Gryffandor did not win. [snip] > Taking the suggestion mentioned above; that Charlie may not have > played > Seeker after he got his growth, but went on to play some other > position > (Keeper?) and to captain the team for his later Hogwarts years. If > we could > tentatively say that Charlie graduated the year immediately before > Harry and > Ron started Hogwarts. This would have made that last year that > Gryffrandor > took the cup Charlie's 2nd year. > I think canon strongly suggests that Charlie never played any > position other than Seeker. In PS/SS ch. 10, Oliver Wood tells Harry > at the end of his first practice, "I wouldn't be surprised if you > turn out better than Charlie Weasley, and he could have played for > England if he hadn't gone off chasing dragons." To me, this sentence > is a comparison of Harry as a Seeker to Charlie as a Seeker that was > good enough to have played for England. After all, Wood hasn't seen > Harry do anything except fly and catch golf balls pretending to be > snitches. He has no other basis for comparison. It's highly > unlikely that Charlie could have played Seeker for England if he had > switched positions early on, or left the team because he had grown > too stocky. > > I suppose there is a slim possibility that Charlie continued to play > Seeker after Gryffindor last won the Cup, but Fred tells Harry (PS/SS > ch. 9) that "we haven't won since Charlie *left*," again a strong > implication that Gryffindor was highly successful at Quidditch as > long as Charlie was there. > > Yes, I think the Lexicon is absolutely correct; I believe there is an > enormous age gap, notwithstanding Ginny's statement at the end of CoS > that she's looked forward to coming to Hogwarts ever since Bill came. > (Regardless of the actual age gap, that statement cannot be correct > because Ginny cannot possibly have remembered when Bill went to > Hogwarts.) And I believe that at some point in the series the > explanatory Weasley backstory will be told. But that won't be for a > long time, leaving us with years to engage in delicious speculation. > > Debbie > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > ===== jackie04 at brandeis.edu __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? HotJobs - Search Thousands of New Jobs http://www.hotjobs.com From bard7696 at aol.com Sat Aug 10 15:16:28 2002 From: bard7696 at aol.com (darrin_burnett) Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 15:16:28 -0000 Subject: The "Missing 24-hours" - an alternative take In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42417 Grey Wolf wrote: > > I'd like to see what canon, if any, you're basing yourself in, since right now the theory is so shacky I cannot buy it. You mention that the fact that Time-Turners exist opens the possibility of traveling into the future, but I don't buy it; in fact, notice that the time-turners *only* allow returning into the past, to live through a time you've already been through a second time. It is *not* a time-travel device. There IS no canon for that 24 hours, that's the point. So, to ask for canon for those theories is a feint, because none exists. There are only clues. And where in canon is the "fact" that the Time-Turner only allow returning to the past? Just because that's all they've done doesn't mean that's all they can do. And who's the say there isn't a Time- Speeder or something like that that specifically is for the future? And of course a Time-Turner is a time-travel device. I agree it probably can't go back 3000 years (and since it's one turn an hour, who'd want to turn it 26,280,000 times anyway?) but it's still a time- travel device. > Appart from the time turner device, too, you give no further evidence of the ability of Hagrid to use the powerful magic that I feel would be needed to catapult him, a baby and a motorcycle into the future. A talented witch with two years experience (remember, Hermione got it at the beginning of third-year) was able to use it to go into the past. We're only talking about 24 hours here. There is no evidence at all that you need extra magic ooomph -- apart from normal magic ability, which Hagrid does have -- to make it work. And SHE DID give evidence as to Hagrid's magical ability. He disappeared so quickly from Harry in SS/PS that she speculated he could apparate and disparate. Pg 66, PS UK, Hagrid vanished in the time it took Harry to blink. Hagrid does have magic ability, that's been proven over and over again. It is indeed less focused, but there is no evidence it has less raw power than the average wizard's ability. > No, I don't see how your theory can hold water, especially when we've got a much more sensible theory: Hagrid went into hiding and kept the baby low-key during that day someplace he knew the DEs (or anyone else> for that matter) wouldn't look for him. I'd say his father's old house > or some island far from the coast, or some other place where he could find feed for the baby without risking being seen. More sensible theory? C'mon, Ali put forth an imaginative theory that isn't contradicted at all by the limited canon we have and the limited knowledge we have of how a Time-Turner works. There is hardly any canon for how at TT works, only speculation by people who enjoy dissecting Time Travel fiction without remembering that just because Ray Bradbury and H.G. Wells had certain theories doesn't mean JKR has to follow them. Hope THAT helps, Darrin -- Until OoP comes out, one theory is as good as another From midgiecat at aol.com Sat Aug 10 16:04:28 2002 From: midgiecat at aol.com (midgiecat at aol.com) Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 12:04:28 EDT Subject: Thoughts on Muggles with Wizards Message-ID: <18f.c31ab91.2a86938c@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 42418 Arthur Weasley must have had more than a few friends at Hogwarts that were either muggle born or half-muggle half-wizard, right? After all, that's the composition at hogwarts now (in the time period for all four books). So, if he wants to know how muggle things work, for his job at the MOM, he could just contact all his old schoolmates, instead of running into things one by one as he meets a muggle. I wondered why he doesn't? I also have a thought or two about muggles/magic folk. How does a child become a witch or wizard with two muggle parents, like Hermione [and Lily], unless somewhere way back in their ancestry someone was married to a witch or wizard and it turns up in a later generation, like a recessive gene. [This means, dear Petunia, that you also have this gene in your blood, too.] We do know that wizards and witches do marry muggles because of the many instances of "mixed marriages" as voiced by Hogwarts students during CoS. So one would guess that either these couples met at a place where they would not normally have known each other, such as Hogwarts, or, magic and non magic folk do "hang out" together sometimes. How do they get together, if they haven't attended a school of wizardry together. Also, regarding a mention about Arthur Weasley while at Hogwarts, I think he was probably there with Lucius Malfoy because Lucius is always making comments on how slowly Arthur is climbing up the ladder of success at the MOM. Something one would say to a schoolmate of whom greater things were expected (if not by Malfoy- at least by the rest of the school). [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From midgiecat at aol.com Sat Aug 10 16:05:12 2002 From: midgiecat at aol.com (midgiecat at aol.com) Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 12:05:12 EDT Subject: Thoughts on Muggles with Wizards Message-ID: <8f.205b946e.2a8693b8@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 42419 Arthur Weasley must have had more than a few friends at Hogwarts that were either muggle born or half-muggle half-wizard, right? After all, that's the composition at hogwarts now (in the time period for all four books). So, if he wants to know how muggle things work, for his job at the MOM, he could just contact all his old schoolmates, instead of running into things one by one as he meets a muggle. I wondered why he doesn't? I also have a thought or two about muggles/magic folk. How does a child become a witch or wizard with two muggle parents, like Hermione [and Lily], unless somewhere way back in their ancestry someone was married to a witch or wizard and it turns up in a later generation, like a recessive gene. [This means, dear Petunia, that you also have this gene in your blood, too.] We do know that wizards and witches do marry muggles because of the many instances of "mixed marriages" as voiced by Hogwarts students during CoS. So one would guess that either these couples met at a place where they would not normally have known each other, such as Hogwarts, or, magic and non magic folk do "hang out" together sometimes. How do they get together, if they haven't attended a school of wizardry together. Also, regarding a mention about Arthur Weasley while at Hogwarts, I think he was probably there with Lucius Malfoy because Lucius is always making comments on how slowly Arthur is climbing up the ladder of success at the MOM. Something one would say to a schoolmate of whom greater things were expected (if not by Malfoy- at least by the rest of the school). Brenda Wendelken (sorry that first post was unsigned). [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From yrawen at ontheqt.org Sat Aug 10 16:59:32 2002 From: yrawen at ontheqt.org (yr awen) Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 12:59:32 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Thoughts on Muggles with Wizards References: <8f.205b946e.2a8693b8@aol.com> Message-ID: <004401c2408f$4ca3cf20$68f0f718@kzo.chartermi.net> No: HPFGUIDX 42420 Brenda said: Also, regarding a mention about Arthur Weasley while at Hogwarts, I think he was probably there with Lucius Malfoy because Lucius is always making comments on how slowly Arthur is climbing up the ladder of success at the MOM. Something one would say to a schoolmate of whom greater things were expected (if not by Malfoy- at least by the rest of the school). <<<<<<<<< According to the dates given in the HP Lexicon, as derived from random comments in the series, the only way Lucius could have attended Hogwarts with Arthur is if he was entering his first year at some point after the re-opening of the Chamber of Secrets by Tom Riddle and Hagrid's installation as the new Groundskeeper, all of which took place 50 years ago as of CoS. In CoS, Draco inadvertently tells the disguised Harry and Ron that the re-opening was before his father went to Hogwarts, and in GoF, Molly remembers Ogg, the ex-Groundskeeper who Hagrid ended up replacing. The Chamber opening would have to have taken place before Lucius' entrance into Hogwarts, but Luciou while Arthur was still there (maybe Arthur would be in seventh and Lucius in first year, or something.) The thing, though, is that it's common opinion regarding Arthur's slow ascent up the Ministry hierarchy. Lucius is probably very aware of that, and plays on it as best he can -- assuming Arthur started at the Ministry right out of school, he's been there a long time without much in the way of advancement. In GoF, Molly tells Dumbledore that Arthur's love of Muggles has kept him back for several years, position-wise: "There is work to be done," [Dumbledore] said. "Molly... am I right in thinking that I can count on you and Arthur?" "Of course you can," said Mrs. Weasley. She was white to the lips, but she looked resolute. "We know what Fudge is. It's Arthur's fondness for Muggles that has held him back at the Ministry all these years. Fudge thinks he lacks proper wizarding pride." Arthur's slightly non-majority opinions have been influential in preventing him from becoming the political force he, at least according to Molly, is quite capable of being. Dumbledore continues on to say, though, that Arthur is "well-placed" to contact those people who can be swayed to Dumbledore's cause. Additionally, Arthur *is* a respected member of the wizarding community and the Weasley family is still considered a prominent one. I'll be interested to see what Arthur's role in OoP is, but I'm sure he'll prove Fudge more than wrong in the 'proper wizarding pride' department :-) He'll prove Lucius wrong, too, and Lucius plays on the same 'pride' issue as Fudge seems to do. Most of his insults, when not referring to the Weasleys' financial situation, are targeted at Arthur's pro-Muggle stance and consequent lack of pride in his status as a wizard. HF. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From eloiseherisson at aol.com Sat Aug 10 17:11:44 2002 From: eloiseherisson at aol.com (eloiseherisson at aol.com) Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 13:11:44 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The "Missing 24-hours" - an alternative take Message-ID: <1be.a68a7e7.2a86a350@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 42421 Greywolf: > Well, for one, Hagrid knows how to take care of a baby. For > 24 hours, or longer if need be. I wonder just what *your* canon is for that, other than the fact that he obviously got Harry to Privet Drive in one piece. The only baby we've seen Hagrid look after successfully is Norbert. He doesn't know what to feed the Skrewts, who end up eating each other and the Flobber Worms die from a surfeit of lettuce, IIRC. He attempts to feed human children on stoat sandwiches and on rock cakes and toffee that are nearly impossible to eat. If Snape had turned up cradling Harry, hard as it is to imagine, we would have had just as much canon to indicate his mastery of infant-care. In other words, zero. I think you misjudge McGonagall, BTW. I think she's quite a softie at heart. Eloise [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From eloiseherisson at aol.com Sat Aug 10 17:25:13 2002 From: eloiseherisson at aol.com (eloiseherisson at aol.com) Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 13:25:13 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The benefits of metathinking Message-ID: <48.fbde575.2a86a679@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 42422 At the risk of sounding terribly naive and ignorant, I wonder if someone would just define the word "metathinking" again for those of us for whom it is not part of our everyday vocabulary and whose dictionaries don't contain it? I would ask off-list, but I suspect I'm not the only one who's a little uncertain. Eloise (Deeply flattered that Pip liked her development of the 'It Wuz Snape' theory.) "For I am a Bear of Very Little Brain and long words Bother Me." [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Ali at zymurgy.org Sat Aug 10 17:29:25 2002 From: Ali at zymurgy.org (alhewison) Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 17:29:25 -0000 Subject: The "Missing 24-hours" - an alternative take In-Reply-To: <000f01c24019$0c2b0060$3a3b3244@arlngt01.va.comcast.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42423 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., elfundeb wrote: A clever idea, but I believe it cannot work. Time-Turner principles we've seen would not allow Harry and Hagrid to skip over time. (For that matter, if it works going forward the same way it works going backward, turning it forward would simply create Hagrid/Harry2 at that moment who would lead parallel lives with Hagrid/Harry1 for the period of time the time-Turner had been set for, then merge again at the end of that period.) I suppose that's my point. We have been introduced to the concept of "Time Travel". Hermione has been told how the Time-Turner works to achieve her aim, which is to attend all her classes. She is able to extend this principle to save Sirius and Buckbeak. This surely does not preclude a further use of the Time-Turner ? to move forward in time. For example, I might be taught how to use a calculator to add- up as that is all *I* might needed it for, but that does not preclude the possibility that it has further uses. We are perhaps limited in our understanding of the Time-Turner's usage by the needs of the books at the time ? but opened up to the idea of alternative usage? In reality whilst many people might want to "have their time again" and go back in time, the desire to go forward is more limited. I accept that if someone uses a Time-Turner to go back that they are really only creating a second version of themselves, But the fact remains that they then have some influence over their destiny. This is precisely why it is such a dangerous tool. I do acknowledge that the effect of the Time-Turner so far has been to create 2 or more Harry/Hermiones at a single point in time. But the principle it establishes *to me* is that time ? and destiny can be cheated. Hermione has already cited the dangers of creating an alternative self. I believe that there would be different dangers in not existing at all for a period, but impossible? How is it anymore impossible not to exist at all than it is to exist in 2 places at once? Grey Wolf, you wanted canon. When Hagrid first arrives in Privet Drive, Dumbledore asks him if he had any problems, to which Hagrid replies "No, the little tyke fell asleep over Bristol". (sorry this is from memory ? we've got guests at the moment and they're take the mick if they see me sneaking down to check my canon!) That response does not to me sound like the answer of someone who has just looked after a bereaved and injured baby for 24 hours. Children are very hard work; if Hagrid had indeed been looking after Harry, feeding him, changing his nappies, etc, even if he was the most wonderful, patient, practiced, childcare expert in the world, his response should have been slightly different (IMHO). Using the Time-Turner bypasses the need for that. I am sure that Hagrid would be a good carer, but that does not mean that that was what he was doing during that 24 hour period. Ali (Who is very grateful for Darrin's spirited defence, and grateful to her husband for looking after her 2 little tykes today as they've been such !!? all week!) From rvotaw at i-55.com Sat Aug 10 17:39:38 2002 From: rvotaw at i-55.com (Richelle Votaw) Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 12:39:38 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Thoughts on Muggles with Wizards References: <18f.c31ab91.2a86938c@aol.com> Message-ID: <001701c24094$e74cc220$62a1cdd1@istu757> No: HPFGUIDX 42424 midgie cat writes: > I also have a thought or two about muggles/magic folk. How does a child > become a witch or wizard with two muggle parents, like Hermione [and Lily], > unless somewhere way back in their ancestry someone was married to a witch or > wizard and it turns up in a later generation, like a recessive gene. I've thought about his a good deal. In my mind there's got to be something in their ancestry that makes them magical, which would explain why it's so rare to find a squib, since the bloodline is more recent in them. I guess they're sort of a genetic freak. Anyway, I would think that somewhere, way back, Hermione has an ancestor with magical abilities. Just my thought on the matter anyway. > Also, regarding a mention about Arthur Weasley while at Hogwarts, I think he > was probably there with Lucius Malfoy because Lucius is always making > comments on how slowly Arthur is climbing up the ladder of success at the > MOM. Something one would say to a schoolmate of whom greater things were > expected (if not by Malfoy- at least by the rest of the school). Perhaps Lucius and Arthur were the Malfoy and Potter/ Snape and Mauraders of their day? Which makes me wonder, does Draco have any older siblings? Has it been confirmed/denied in any of the books? If he doesn't, Lucius must've been rather late getting around to having children. Compared to Arthur who has 5 sons older than Draco, and his second youngest is Draco's age. Richelle From Chelsea2162 at aol.com Sat Aug 10 17:37:23 2002 From: Chelsea2162 at aol.com (Chelsea2162 at aol.com) Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 13:37:23 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The "Missing 24-hours" - an alternative take Message-ID: <6a.243d6bd6.2a86a953@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 42425 This is tricky, because there is NO canon, really, for that time period. We don't know what happened, so ANY guess is a good one. I It's true that we haven't seen any Time Turners used to go into the future, but I'm betting that there are devices that can pull it off. If you can go into the past, why not go into the future? You may say "well, the future hasn't happened already!" Well, I'm sure that to people who meet time travelers, they're thinking the same thing. >>No, I don't see how your theory can hold water,<< And I disagree with the idea "not holding any water". Why couldn't a device have been used? Dumbledore could have told Hagrid that he couldn't make it to Privet Drive any earlier than a specific time, so it might have been a good idea to move forward in time. It doesn't particularly sound like a great idea (for who knows what they could have missed, or passed), but ANYTHING could have happened so far. Who knows, maybe Hagrid and Harry stopped at the Leaky Cauldron for a day, chatted up the ladies, and knocked back a few. Sure, that sounds ridiculous, but we DON'T know. And I personally think the idea of travelling into the future is pretty cool. Some very strange ideas have been tossed out, and this is not one of them. In a situation like this, where we don't really have much of an idea as to what happened, something like this could explain it. >>Appart from the time turner device, too, you give no further evidence of the ability of Hagrid to use the powerful magic that I feel would be needed to catapult him, a baby and a motorcycle into the future<< AND...why COULDN'T Hagrid work a device to 'catapult' them into the future? Didn't Hermione use a TT to catapult her, Harry, and Buckbeak to the present? If Hermione did it, why couldn't Hagrid? Sure, Hermione's very smart, but Hagrid isn't stupid. He wasn't expelled because he was a horrible student, after all. If there's a device that can bring you into the future, why couldn't it bring a man (albeit a giant one), a baby, and a motorcycle, if the opposite device could handle 2 teenagers and a hippogriff? What I'm trying to say is that we should be open to all theories, and not shoot them down. There's a chance that Ali could be 100% correct. There's a chance she could be completely wrong. However, she had a good theory, and it could fit logically, so we should be open to it. We don't know yet exactly what happened, so we may as well make guesses. Personally, I'm holding onto my theory of Hagrid and Harry flirting and drinking. *raises Mai Tai in a toast* May all future theories be given consideration. *Chelsea* From pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk Sat Aug 10 18:30:15 2002 From: pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk (bluesqueak) Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 18:30:15 -0000 Subject: The benefits of metathinking/Missing 24 hours In-Reply-To: <48.fbde575.2a86a679@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42426 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., eloiseherisson at a... wrote: > At the risk of sounding terribly naive and ignorant, I wonder if > someone would just define the word "metathinking" again for those > of us for whom it is not part of our everyday vocabulary and whose > dictionaries don't contain it? > > I would ask off-list, but I suspect I'm not the only one who's a > little uncertain. OOPS! Sorry. And me somebody who had to look up 'paradigm' recently. :-) Meta-thinking the 'meta' is from the Greek, and like in meta-morphosis denotes a *change* - of position or type. Meta-thinking is generally when you move from one level of thought (internal, canon based arguments) to a higher, possibly more abstract level of thought (my reaction to canon). And then you can meta-think again, to yet another level (how much has JKR used technique in provoking my reaction to canon). So - I'm thinking about canon, then I'm thinking about how I react to/think about canon, then I'm thinking about how JKR was thinking when she made me think about canon. The term's used in computer science quite a bit, because it's a really good way of describing the shifts in level you need to make when considering whether you need to look at the detailed machine code, a higher level programming language, or the entire computer system. 'Meta' is used in much the same way in 'metalanguage' (if there are any linguists among us) - a higher level language which is talking about language itself. It can also be slang for 'thinking outside the box' - lateral thinking, because you *change* (meta) your *thinking* method. > > Eloise > (Deeply flattered that Pip liked her development of the 'It Wuz > Snape' theory.) Well, it *is* better [grin]. _____________________________________________________________________ Timeturner: In PoA [UK hardback, pp288-289] when Hermione uses the Time Turner, she not only takes Harry and herself back three hours, she also moves them from the Hospital wing to the Entrance Hall. So if Hagrid used the Time Turner to move himself and Harry forward twenty four hours, why couldn't he also use it to move the two of them to Privet Drive? Why use the motorbike at all? Pip (who reckons that Time Turner is going to turn up again somewhere). From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Sat Aug 10 18:34:33 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 18:34:33 -0000 Subject: The benefits of metathinking In-Reply-To: <48.fbde575.2a86a679@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42427 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., eloiseherisson at a... wrote: > At the risk of sounding terribly naive and ignorant, I wonder if > someone would just define the word "metathinking" again for those of > us for whom it is not part of our everyday vocabulary and whose > dictionaries don't contain it? > > I would ask off-list, but I suspect I'm not the only one who's a > little uncertain. > > Eloise > (Deeply flattered that Pip liked her development of the 'It Wuz > Snape' theory.) > > "For I am a Bear of Very Little Brain and long words Bother Me." Don't worry. I coined the term "metathinking" for the sort of defense of an argument based on literary thinking. For example, that JKR wouldn't make Dumbledore bad because he is just not the sort. It just means that you're basing the answer on something outside the books internal logic, which is not *good* or *bad* as such. I generally dislike metathinking arguments, but sometimes there are the only valod ones, since there is suimply not enough canon to make the argument water-tight just by the books internal logic. I try to keep my posts free of them, but there is no need to do so, and in fact, as was stated in the post "the benefits of metathinking", they can be quite useful. I've said that metathinking is not "fair play" at times past, which is were this discussion probably originated, but that's because most of my post are based on internal evidence, and I find it difficult to answer metathinking points. But that's just me (and I won't lie, I've used them myself on occasions when there isn't anymore to work with). Hope that helps, Grey Wolf, who knows what he means with metathinking, but isn't sure he's managing to get it across. From Ali at zymurgy.org Sat Aug 10 19:32:38 2002 From: Ali at zymurgy.org (alhewison) Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 19:32:38 -0000 Subject: Time Turner working was Re: The benefits of metathinking/Missing 24 hours In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42428 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "bluesqueak" wrote: > Timeturner: In PoA [UK hardback, pp288-289] when Hermione uses the Time Turner, she not only takes Harry and herself back three hours, she also moves them from the Hospital wing to the Entrance Hall. So if Hagrid used the Time Turner to move himself and Harry forward twenty four hours, why couldn't he also use it to move the two of them to Privet Drive? Why use the motorbike at all? This idea interested me. I had always assumed that Harry and Hermione were transported to the Entrance Hall because that was where they were 3 hours previously - hence they have to move into a cupboard so that they don't bump into their alternate-selves. Your take on it allows for time - and distance travel making the Time Turner an even more useful tool. Ali From mdemeran at hotmail.com Sat Aug 10 19:33:20 2002 From: mdemeran at hotmail.com (Meg Demeranville) Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 14:33:20 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] The "Missing 24-hours" - another theory References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42429 Ali's post got me thinking and then she posted again Grey Wolf, you wanted canon. When Hagrid first arrives in Privet Drive, Dumbledore asks him if he had any problems, to which Hagrid replies "No, the little tyke fell asleep over Bristol". (sorry this is from memory - we've got guests at the moment and they're take the mick if they see me sneaking down to check my canon!) That response does not to me sound like the answer of someone who has just looked after a bereaved and injured baby for 24 hours. Children are very hard work; if Hagrid had indeed been looking after Harry, feeding him, changing his nappies, etc, even if he was the most wonderful, patient, practiced, childcare expert in the world, his response should have been slightly different (IMHO). Using the Time-Turner bypasses the need for that. I am sure that Hagrid would be a good carer, but that does not mean that that was what he was doing during that 24 hour period. It made me stop and think. Who could have taken care of little Harry, if Hagrid didn't (and I don't think he did)? Why Mrs. Weasley , of course. Now before someone throws rotten eggs at me, hear me out. When Harry stopped Voldermort, Mrs. Weasley would have had an infant (probably) and a child his age. She has experience taking care of kids and is one of the old crowd that Dumbledore trusts. I think that Dumbledore sent Hagrid to take Harry to the Burrow. That would give Dumbledore time to establish whatever protections were needed at Privet Drive while Harry was safe and well-taken care of. Harry and Ron wouldn't necessarily remember the incident at all. In fact, they probably wouldn't. The older kids might have, but could have been memory charmed or told to not talk about the day. And it would explain a lot of Mrs. Weasley's mothering actions toward him. She took care of him right after this major traumatic event in his life only to have him go to Muggles. After spending the day with the Weasleys, Hagrid picked him up and delivered him to Dumbledore on Privet Drive. And the locations would work out, I think, at least according to the Lexicon. Bristol is between Ottery St. Catchpole and Surrey. It probably would not have been safe for Hagrid to fly the motorcycle during the day and he needed to get Harry to a safe location for the day. I think that Harry and Ron became friends a little too easily. It would seem that Harry would be very wary of anyone in this new situation. It has been my experience that I become fast friends with people I played with when I was very little (before I was three) when I meet them again later. I do not remember playing with them as a kid but something makes me trust them more that I normally do. But that is just my experience. Ok, now you can throw your rotten eggs (puts on a blindfold and waits) --Meg (who needs to stop thinking about Harry Potter and get back to cleaning up) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk Sat Aug 10 19:53:18 2002 From: pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk (bluesqueak) Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 19:53:18 -0000 Subject: the Weasleys In-Reply-To: <008201c2400d$291fd620$3a3b3244@arlngt01.va.comcast.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42430 Debbie says: > > Yes, I think the Lexicon is absolutely correct; I believe there is an enormous age gap, notwithstanding Ginny's statement at the end of CoS that she's looked forward to coming to Hogwarts ever since Bill came. (Regardless of the actual age gap, that statement cannot be correct because Ginny cannot possibly have remembered when Bill went to Hogwarts.) And I believe that at some point in the series the explanatory Weasley backstory will be told. But that won't be for a long time, leaving us with years to engage in delicious speculation. > Possibly Ginny's statement shouldn't be taken to mean that she's looked forward to coming to Hogwarts since Bill *first* came; simply that she's looked forward to coming to Hogwarts since *she remembers* Bill coming there. Since the most likely date [according to the Lexicon] for Charlie leaving is 84-85, if we assume Bill is one year older he'd have left in 83-84, and Ginny would have been between 18 months and 2 and a half when he left for the first term of his final year. He was Head Boy; it was probably made a big deal of in the Weasley family. I'd imagine that possibly the toddler Ginny got upset, clung desperately to Bill's leg, and insisted with whatever vocabulary she had that she wanted to go too... and it became a family story that Ginny wanted to go to Hogwarts with Bill. And since Ginny remembers that she's always wanted to go to Hogwarts, and has been told that she wanted to go with Bill, that's how she phrases it - I've wanted to go since Bill came. Alternatively she might 'remember' it in the way I have one or two memories from between two and three - very clear 'pictures' of something, and it's my more mature knowledge that can identify what the pictures are (I've got a 'picture' of looking up at my pram, which was navy blue and towered over me, for example.) Ginny might have such a 'picture' of Bill getting on to a steam train, and it's her later knowledge that can tag this with 'it was the Hogwarts Express and I wanted to go.' Pip From rvotaw at i-55.com Sat Aug 10 20:23:58 2002 From: rvotaw at i-55.com (Richelle Votaw) Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 15:23:58 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] The "Missing 24-hours" - another theory References: Message-ID: <002101c240ab$dc747480$069ecdd1@istu757> No: HPFGUIDX 42431 Meg writes: > It made me stop and think. Who could have taken care of little Harry, if Hagrid didn't (and I don't think he did)? Why Mrs. Weasley , of course. Now before someone throws rotten eggs at me, hear me out. You know, that's actually not a bad idea at all. I would also explain why Mrs. Weasley is *so* protective and caring of Harry later on in life. I do like the thought that rather than hanging out with Hagrid all day Harry was actually in the care of a kind, nurturing woman. I mean when you think about it, this baby was not in any condition to be cared for by someone like Hagrid. I love Hagrid, but he's not the most capable at caregiving. And it wasn't just a matter of changing diapers and giving bottles. This baby, at fifteen months, was old enough to realize something was desparately wrong. Not only could he feel, though not understand, his mother's sudden panic, but he saw her murdered in front of him. He was too young to understand what was going on, but old enough to know something was awfully wrong. And when a baby knows something is wrong, there is nothing he can do but cry. And cry he did, I'm sure. And a baby can quickly cry himself sick under such circumstances. I think it's very possible that Harry was cared for by Mrs. Weasley. It would take a true mother to calm a baby in such a condition as that. No rotten eggs coming from here. :) Richelle From Caliway26 at ns.sympatico.ca Sat Aug 10 13:47:22 2002 From: Caliway26 at ns.sympatico.ca (R. MacDonald) Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 10:47:22 -0300 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Wizard Photographs.. more thoughts on this =) In-Reply-To: <102.197329e2.2a85acb7@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42432 ~*~*~Talia Dawn~*~*~ wrote: ---Original Message----- From: SnapesSlytherin at aol.com [mailto:SnapesSlytherin at aol.com] Sent: Friday, August 09, 2002 8:40 PM To: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [HPforGrownups] Re: Wizard Photographs.. more thoughts on this =) Where does he tell him this? I don't remember Colin saying anything about cameras in CoS....but I have the American version. To keep this on-topic, I always thought that the wizard photos were a little like Diary!Riddle. They know who they are but they're only a memory of the person, like a home movie of you and your friends from where you were little. I don't think cutting the picture up would hurt them, because they could always move. But I think this is one of those things we'll never find out... (Who recently took a personality test on Emode.com and now *knows* that she is what everyone always tells her she is - pure evil.) R. MacDonald wrote: The notion of memory in a picture or painting is very intriguing. It's obvious that a painted person has some aspect of memory to them, after al the Fat lady remembers Passwords to the Common room. And if, given that, photographs retain a memory, wouldn't a picture in a room where a major crime occurred be accountable as a witness. Just to narrow this a little further, would pictures on the walls of a little house in Godric Hollow have a story to tell about what happened one lonely Halloween night. Ray R. MacDonald ICQ #15170395 Caliway26 at ns.sympatico.ca [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Caliway26 at ns.sympatico.ca Sat Aug 10 15:09:41 2002 From: Caliway26 at ns.sympatico.ca (R. MacDonald) Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 12:09:41 -0300 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The "Missing 24-hours" - an alternative take In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42433 -----Original Message----- From: grey_wolf_c [mailto:greywolf1 at jazzfree.com] Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The "Missing 24-hours" - an alternative take I'd like to see what canon, if any, you're basing yourself in, since right now the theory is so shacky I cannot buy it. You mention that the fact that Time-Turners exist opens the possibility of traveling into the future, but I don't buy it; in fact, notice that the time-turners *only* allow returning into the past, to live through a time you've already been through a second time. It is *not* a time-travel device. You cannot go back 3000 years, take a look around and go back to your time. If you go back that far, you're stuck because there is no way the time turner will take you into the future. [R. MacDonald wrote] Hmm, Sounds a little like you're describing the "Quantum Leap" time travel with-in the users own lifetime. However I don't recall any reference to the device ever being used more man a few hours back, and like you noted, only back. Also I don't think there was any changes to history. Hermoine used the device to go to more than one class in the same timeframe, but didn't change either experience, and in saving Sirius and the Hippogriff, they acted more around the original timeline than into it. Myself, I can't understand the notion of being able to move in a time, and not alter that time, but I think we should ask the question, why, if the technology's was available to them, didn't Dumbledore use the Time-Turner to change the events of Lily and James Death? Or if he couldn't change those events, did he use the Time-Turner document the events themselves? Ray R. MacDonald ICQ #15170395 Caliway26 at ns.sympatico.ca [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From jodel at aol.com Sat Aug 10 17:07:21 2002 From: jodel at aol.com (jodel at aol.com) Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 13:07:21 EDT Subject: Muggle-borns and Hogwarts letters (was; Colin's camera) Message-ID: <1b8.4986774.2a86a249@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 42434 In a message dated 8/10/02 7:59:51 AM, "rosie" writes: << New idea: Harry didn't get the full Muggle introduction to Hogwarts because he was not Muggle-born and his adoptive family (Petunia) were meant to know about the WW. Perhaps if you are truly Muggle-born like Colin, you get someone coming to your house (bit like Hagrid's visit to Harry) to talk to you and your parents, you get to write to someone and ask lots of questions, you get more detailed information about the castle and so on. >> Not such a new idea. I've been pushing it for the past year. I think that in the case of Muggle-born students, the owl letter is actually hand delivered by an employee of the Ministry department that oversees Hogwarts. This representitive explains the situation (and later obliviates the family if they refuse to allow the kid to attend) and makes an appointment to give them a tour of Diagon Alley to set up a Gringotts account and/or purchase school suplies. What is more, I think that in order to avoid a situation where every rep is out of the office on assignment at once, these hand delivered Hogwarts letters are delivered in the week before the child's 11th birthday regardless of when during the year it occurs. If this is the case, then children whose birthdays are early enough to have just missed the cut-off date to have attended the year before they actually started at Hogwarts (like Hermione) are given anything up to nearly a full year in which to prepare themselves for the changes in their lives. Which would go a long way towards explaining how a child of such natural gifts, but no magical backgroud, as hermione should be so VERY well prepared once she actually DID board the Hogwarts Express. -JOdel From xp39c at yahoo.com Sat Aug 10 21:14:21 2002 From: xp39c at yahoo.com (xp39c) Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 21:14:21 -0000 Subject: Snape fulfilling his life debt In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42435 Fyre Wood wrote: > Snape has gone out of his way time and time again to save precious > Harry Potter from mortal peril. We've seen him stand up to Sirius > Black in an attempt to save his life, as well as considering that > Potter wasn't the one to petrify Filch's cat in book 2. There's other > instances with Snape performing a counter curse in book 1 so that > Harry wouldn't fall off his broom, and much much more! Does anyone have a problem with the fact that Snape has a life-debt to James Potter in the first place? The only reason why James was even in a position to save Snape's life was because James's best friend had set Snape up to find another of James's friends as a werewolf. It doesn't seem right to me that James got Snape indebted from a situation that his friends had created. And arguably, James saved Snape's life as much to prevent himself from being expelled (or worse) as to actually save Snape's life. --Hei Lun From bard7696 at aol.com Sat Aug 10 21:55:57 2002 From: bard7696 at aol.com (darrin_burnett) Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 21:55:57 -0000 Subject: Snape fulfilling his life debt In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42436 Hei Lun wrote: > > Does anyone have a problem with the fact that Snape has a life-debt > to James Potter in the first place? The only reason why James was > even in a position to save Snape's life was because James's best > friend had set Snape up to find another of James's friends as a > werewolf. It doesn't seem right to me that James got Snape indebted > from a situation that his friends had created. And arguably, James > saved Snape's life as much to prevent himself from being expelled (or > worse) as to actually save Snape's life. > > --Hei Lun Excellent point. Dumbledore speaks of life debts in almost reverential tones. It seems crazy to think that such power can be manipulated. I do not believe James set up Snape just to save him, putting him in his debt, but it would be easy to see how someone could set up a similar situation in order to secure life debts. Again, there seems to be differences between how Harry saved Wormtail and how James saved Snape. First, Wormtail was guaranteed to die. Snape would have gone into an extremely dangerous situation, but perhaps could have gotten out of it on his own. Second, as you point out, James had something to gain by saving Snape. Harry really had nothing to gain. (It remains to be seen how Wormtail will pay back his debt, but Harry certainly did not know about life debts when he talked Lupin and Black out of killing Wormtail.) My own pet theory is that Lily talked James into stopping Snape, making any indebtedness to Lily, rather than James. The facts according to Dumbledore are that Snape feels indebted to James. Snape himself, at least in front of Harry, downplays, even denigrates, James' act. I submit that Snape does feel a debt, but it is not a magically binding debt. It is something his own sense of honor demands. Darrin -- And I'd rather see the debt be to Lily anyway. :) From flower_fairy12 at yahoo.co.uk Sat Aug 10 21:18:39 2002 From: flower_fairy12 at yahoo.co.uk (flower_fairy12) Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 21:18:39 -0000 Subject: Voldemort's life debt to Lily (Theory) In-Reply-To: <20020810074829.31098.qmail@web9203.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42437 > Aloha: > My almost 4am thought: what if, it wasn't Lily's love DIRECTLY that > caused the AK to rebound? Could it have been that she somehow made > Voldemort the Cruel feel a teensy bit of remorse for what he was going > to do, and in doing so screw up the AK? Heh! Voldy couldn't feel remorse if it smacked him on the arse with a pick axe. Sorry it's short! :D Rosie From rsteph1981 at yahoo.com Sat Aug 10 21:25:33 2002 From: rsteph1981 at yahoo.com (rsteph1981) Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 21:25:33 -0000 Subject: the Weasleys In-Reply-To: <20020810151432.41888.qmail@web9207.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42438 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Jacqueline Hendries wrote: >I'm in need of clarification. I know that the > Gryffindors haven't won the House Cup in seven years, > and that they haven't won the Quidditch cup since > Charlie Weasley was seeker. However, are we sure that > they haven't won the Quidditch Cup in seven years? As > the Slytherins show in SS, it *is* possible to win the > Quidditch Cup but not the House Cup. > And, if this happened to the Gryffindors, it's > possible that Charlie Weasley is fewer than fourteen > years older than Ron. I don't have my books in front > of me, but... I'd love to have this checked out. :) You have it reversed. In, PoA, the Gryffindors haven't won the Quiddich cup in seven years. They won the House Cup in SS. EXCERPT FROM PoA: "Seriously," said Professor McGonagall, and she was actually smiling. "I daresay you'll need to get the feel of it before Saturday's match, won't you? And Potter -- do try and win, won't you? Or we'll be out of the running for the eighth year. in a row, as Professor Snape was kind enough to remind me only last night...." This is in reference to the Quiddich game against the Slytherin and the Quiddich cup. Also keep in mind that this is Oliver's last chance at the quiddich cup. Rebecca From finwitch at yahoo.com Sat Aug 10 22:00:37 2002 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 22:00:37 -0000 Subject: Snape fulfilling his life debt In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42439 Hei Lun wrote: > Does anyone have a problem with the fact that Snape has a life-debt > to James Potter in the first place? The only reason why James was > even in a position to save Snape's life was because James's best > friend had set Snape up to find another of James's friends as a > werewolf. It doesn't seem right to me that James got Snape indebted > from a situation that his friends had created. And arguably, James > saved Snape's life as much to prevent himself from being expelled (or > worse) as to actually save Snape's life. > For one thing, _James_ was not involved in the planning and definately not Lupin, if it ever took place. He only found out when Snape was on his way. Second, it was a personal and life-threatening risk to James. Third, Snape didn't *have* to go there. It's not like any of them used Imperius on him. Fourth, Snape's idea was to get James & friends into trouble? (Dumbledore's parallel with Malfoy & Harry?) Fifth, I think Sirius just leaked the final information about the Whomping Willow, erring in assuming that Snape knew already. No- I don't see it as created by James, even if Snape believes so (he also blames Harry all the time for offences Harry did not do). -- Finwitch From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Sat Aug 10 22:33:53 2002 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (bboy_mn) Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 22:33:53 -0000 Subject: Colin's camera - In-Reply-To: <006001c24048$f2deb5e0$9e3768d5@xxx> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42440 . Scroll down for message . . . . . . Scroll down for message . . . . . . . . . . [I know they hate it when I put these dots in, but on-line the advertising really messes up the text formatting. If you are reading this by email, sorry if it annoys you.] --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "rosie" wrote: >>> Fyre Wood said:<<< "Wait a second?! I thought that cameras, bugging devices, and all those electric things wouldn't work on the Hogwarts' Campus, as mentioned in the GoF by Hermione when she explains bugging to Harry and Ron. Plot hole? a Flint? Or does Creepy Colin Creevy use one that doesn't run on that sort of thing and is disposable? Or perhaps is the camera a Polariod?" >>> end Fyre Wood <<< >> Rosie replied:<< I just thought of that myself. Even a disposable or Polaroid camera usually takes batteries. You have to go back a number of years before cameras didn't use electricity, don't you?. I can't really see Colin clutching a home-made pinhole camera either... Um. Um. Maybe one of his friends "magicked" it for him so it will now run on magic not batteries (the same guy who suggested he develop it in a special potion?). Amanda pointed out that Mr Creevy would likely give his son a cheapo camera meaning an old mechanical one, but you can get battery-powered, flash cameras pretty cheap here, so why bother? --- bboy_mn interjects: --- RE: battery powered flash cameras. Most cheap cameras are purely mechanical; that is, the only thing the battery does is makes the flash go off. So even modern cheap cameras that have some small amount of electronics in them are still basically old fashioned mechanical shutter box cameras; mechanic shutter, fixed exposure, fixed aperture, fixed focus. I don't recall Colin's camera ever flashing, I remember is 'clicked' a lot, but I don't remember flash; can someone clarify this? So your basic cheap camera would work fine in a highly magical environment like Hogwarts. Although, if a person needed flash, then that part would have to be enchanted. ----------- >> Rosie continues:<< On a related-sort-of note, you know where Mr Weasley (I think) describes the security around the QWC in GOF, and says "there are some places Muggles can't penetrate", making reference to Diagon Alley... what does he mean by this? He clearly can't mean they physically cannot enter at all, as Mr & Mrs Weasley do. They can't enter without the help from a witch or wizard, perhaps? Ideas? --- bboy_mn responds: --- Muggles can't 'penetrate' the cash vault at your local bank, but that doesn't mean they can't get in. Diagon Alley exists in an alternate physical reality. To my knowledge there are only two/three ways to get into Diagon Alley. 1.) to find a pub that can't be seen by muggles (Leaky Cauldron) and somehow get inside it, and somehow get past Tom the proprietor, somehow get into the back courtyard, somehow know which bricks to tap, and somehow have enough magic that tapping those bricks opens the archway to Diagon Alley. 2./3.) apparate/portkey into that magical physical space. I think it's safe to say that getting into the cash vault at your local bank would be easier. Hermione, being a witch, brings here parents into Diagon Alley, because she can see the Leaky Cauldron and knows how to open the archway. Muggles aren't forbidden from being there, but the odds of any muggles getting there without the direct help of a magic person is almost impossible, so in that sense, muggles can't 'penetrate' the 'security' of Diagon Alley. Note that even the magical Knight Bus stopped in the muggle street out in front of the Leaky Cauldron. Now the Quidditch World Cup took place in a Scottish moor which was a camp ground owned and run by a muggle which while it took extreme and unusual precaution to hide from the muggles, still existed in muggle space. Hogwarts and Hogsmead (and the Leaky Cauldron) exist in normal, or mostly or partly in normal muggle physical reality/space but are protected by various enchantments to keep muggles away. Personally, I believe that Hogwarts and Hogsmead exist in both muggle physical reality/space and magical physical reality/space; sort of on the edge, existing in both places. So those places have a 'gateway' into them that allows you to enter from muggle space. While you can get into Hogwarts and Hogsmead by walking in from muggle space, you can't walk into the Forbidden Forest from muggle space. The Forbidden Forest is a part of Hogwarts/Hogsmead that exists only in magical space (my opinion). MY GREAT THEORY- I believe that the archway behind the Leaky Cauldron, that leads into Diagon Alley is not an archway at all but a magical transportation device. It is a portal or portway in the same sense as a portkey. I don't think that Diagon Alley actually exists in London. I don't think it is a secret space hidden behind the Leaky Cauldron. ALthough, the Leaky Cauldron is in London. At best Diagon Alley exists in a separate unique reality of it's own and the archway is a transportation device that takes you between these alternate realities. That's my story and I'm sticking to it. ---------end bboy_mn----------------- ....big edit for length..... > _________________________ > > Bboy_mn wrote:(in a pervious message) > "I know I'm not suppose to post really short messages, but I was > wondering if anyone was willing to speculate about Molly's real name? > > If Molly is a nickname, the what proper name is it typically a nickname > for?" > To which Rosie replied: > Believe it or not (over in the UK at least) Molly comes from Mary as the most common origin of that nickname (and Polly as well). It seems to be a nickname that can come from many names though, like Millie. My sister's name is Amelia, she's called Millie, it's also short for Millicent, and a girl who went missing here was called Amanda, nicknamed Millie. > > Molly works in the same way I think, but if you trace it back I believe it does come from Mary for the most part. Nowadays kids might be given that as a name just by itself but I don't think this was so common in the past. > > Rosie bboy_mn responds: Thank for the 'Molly' info. Completely unrelated to anything; my mother's name was Berniece and many people called her 'Bee' which isn't too far off, but a lot of people called her 'Bill' or 'Billy'; go figure. bboy_mn From rvotaw at i-55.com Sat Aug 10 23:18:02 2002 From: rvotaw at i-55.com (Richelle Votaw) Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 18:18:02 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Voldemort's life debt to Lily (Theory) References: Message-ID: <002001c240c4$36272d20$43a0cdd1@istu757> No: HPFGUIDX 42441 > > Aloha: > > My almost 4am thought: what if, it wasn't Lily's love DIRECTLY that > > caused the AK to rebound? Could it have been that she somehow made > > Voldemort the Cruel feel a teensy bit of remorse for what he was > going > > to do, and in doing so screw up the AK? Though I am hard pressed to believe that Voldemort could feel remorse, let's assume for a moment that there is just a teeny tiny bit of human left in him and he did feel a flashing moment of guilt. So, he becomes so angry at himself that he felt this guilt that he immediately AK's Lily, even though he had every intention of sparing her. Now, if we make another assumption that Lily's death in the film is approved by JKR. She has time to scream out as the spell hits her. It takes a few seconds before she dies, rather than an instant death as usually seen in AK's. Now, stay with me here. Suppose that extra time it takes for Lily to die is a result of Voldemort's hypothetical moment of guilt. Perhaps to perform an AK to perfection you must have absolute hatred toward the individual and not a trace of guilt or remorse. Because of his moment's hesitation Lily is slower to die, and then it builds from there and Harry doesn't die at all. Instead it bounces and so much for Voldemort. Yes, I know, that paragraph has an awful lot of assumptions. But until Book 5 comes out I've nothing better to do than make assumptions. :) Richelle From bard7696 at aol.com Sun Aug 11 00:08:04 2002 From: bard7696 at aol.com (darrin_burnett) Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2002 00:08:04 -0000 Subject: Voldemort's life debt to Lily (Theory) In-Reply-To: <002001c240c4$36272d20$43a0cdd1@istu757> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42442 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Richelle Votaw" wrote: > > > > > Aloha: > > > My almost 4am thought: what if, it wasn't Lily's love DIRECTLY that > > > caused the AK to rebound? Could it have been that she somehow made > > > Voldemort the Cruel feel a teensy bit of remorse for what he was > > going > > > to do, and in doing so screw up the AK? > > Though I am hard pressed to believe that Voldemort could feel remorse, let's assume for a moment that there is just a teeny tiny bit of human left in him and he did feel a flashing moment of guilt. So, he becomes so angry at himself that he felt this guilt that he immediately AK's Lily, even though he had every intention of sparing her. Now, if we make another assumption that Lily's death in the film is approved by JKR. She has time to scream out as the spell hits her. It takes a few seconds before she dies, rather than an instant death as usually seen in AK's. Now, stay with me here. > Suppose that extra time it takes for Lily to die is a result of Voldemort's hypothetical moment of guilt. Perhaps to perform an AK to perfection you must have absolute hatred toward the individual and not a trace of guilt or remorse. Because of his moment's hesitation Lily is slower to die, and then it builds from there and Harry doesn't die at all. Instead it bounces and so much for Voldemort. > Hmmmmmm.... OK. Let's take some of your assumptions and go a slightly different direction. All along, I've said that if V-Mort went into Godric's Hollow with the intention of not killing Lily, he did a poor job of it, because it seems there are lots of ways to go about moving her without killing her. What if the guilt and remorse you and Aloha speak of is actually a violation of some promise he made to Wormtail or Snape? It seems safe to say V-Mort is pretty arrogant. Maybe he thought he was above the magical binds behind debts and promises, and this is a case of one biting him in his scaly rump? Yes, I'm straying somewhat by attaching a magical bind to a promise, but hey, we're talking about magic. As far as I'm concerned, the sky is the limit. On the other hand, I'd REALLY like Lily's sacrifice to remain as untouched as possible by outside forces. > Yes, I know, that paragraph has an awful lot of assumptions. But until Book 5 comes out I've nothing better to do than make assumptions. :) > Hey, until Book 5 comes out, all we gots are assumptions. None are better than the other. Darrin -- You know what they say when you assume, right? Nah, I never let it stop me, either. From rsteph1981 at yahoo.com Sat Aug 10 22:34:11 2002 From: rsteph1981 at yahoo.com (Rebecca Stephens) Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 15:34:11 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Wizard Photographs.. more thoughts on this =) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020810223411.57464.qmail@web20002.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 42443 --- "R. MacDonald" wrote: > > ~*~*~Talia Dawn~*~*~ wrote: > > ---Original Message----- > From: SnapesSlytherin at aol.com > [mailto:SnapesSlytherin at aol.com] > Sent: Friday, August 09, 2002 8:40 PM > To: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com > Subject: Re: [HPforGrownups] Re: Wizard > Photographs.. more thoughts on > this =) > > To keep this on-topic, I always thought that the > wizard photos were a > little > like Diary!Riddle. They know who they are but > they're only a memory of > the > person, like a home movie of you and your friends > from where you were > little. > I don't think cutting the picture up would hurt > them, because they could > always move. But I think this is one of those > things we'll never find > out... > > > R. MacDonald wrote: > > The notion of memory in a picture or painting is > very intriguing. It's > obvious that a painted person has some aspect of > memory to them, after al > the Fat lady remembers Passwords to the Common room. > And if, given that, > photographs retain a memory, wouldn't a picture in a > room where a major > crime occurred be accountable as a witness. Just to > narrow this a little > further, would pictures on the walls of a little > house in Godric Hollow have > a story to tell about what happened one lonely > Halloween night. > > Ray Just had put in my two cents. Are we sure wizarding photographs and wizarding paintings are the same? I could be wrong (please let me know), but I don't recall a photograph ever speaking, as paintings do. I've often wondered if the paintings (at least the ones not of real people) are more like people than the photographs. The paintings seem much more interactive. Any opinions? Rebecca ===== http://wychlaran.tripod.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? HotJobs - Search Thousands of New Jobs http://www.hotjobs.com From primroseburrows at yahoo.com Sat Aug 10 23:27:15 2002 From: primroseburrows at yahoo.com (Primrose Burrows) Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 16:27:15 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Draco Malfoy In-Reply-To: <002201c24024$96dc1040$279ccdd1@istu757> Message-ID: <20020810232715.164.qmail@web12903.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 42444 Richelle Votaw wrote: Either JKR accidentally got a great Latin meaning for Malfoy (lose translation yes, but it works as well as some of the spells latin meanings do), or it was intentional. Thoughts on that? My understanding is that Malfoy is French for "Bad Faith", and Draco is lating for "Dragon". I don't think that Malfoy was ever intended to be a Latin derivative. primrose, new 'round here --------------------------------- Do You Yahoo!? HotJobs, a Yahoo! service - Search Thousands of New Jobs [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From ephantom1 at yahoo.com Sat Aug 10 23:35:19 2002 From: ephantom1 at yahoo.com (ephantom1) Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 23:35:19 -0000 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Did_Hagrid_apparate=3F_And_the_smell_in_Mrs._Figg=92s_house._?= Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42445 Hi, There are two small mysteries that have been bothering me after my recent re-read of the books. After Hagrid puts Harry on the train back to the Dursley's after their shopping trip, Harry blinks and Hagrid is gone. The only explanation seems to be apparition, but it does not fit with Hagrid who never completed his education, and is not that good at magic. How could he be doing something that is said to be very advanced magic, with which many fully qualified wizards do not bother? The other is a seeming discrepancy between SS and GoF. In SS is clearly says that Mrs. Figg's house smelled of cabbage. In GoF however, when they enter the tents Harry notes that the furnishing was similar to that of Mrs. Figg, but without the smell of cats. A mistake? From finwitch at yahoo.com Sat Aug 10 23:43:37 2002 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 23:43:37 -0000 Subject: Voldemort's life debt to Lily (Theory) In-Reply-To: <002901c2402d$f58475c0$75a1cdd1@istu757> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42446 "Richelle Votaw" wrote: > Okay, please explain what else you can interpret from this: > > Lily: "Not Harry, not Harry, please not Harry!" > Voldemort: "Stand aside, you silly girl . . . stand aside, now . . . ." > Lily: "Not Harry, please no, take me, kill me instead--Not Harry! Please . > . . have mercy . . . have mercy. . . ." > > Lily: "Not Harry! Not Harry! Please--I'll do anything--" > Voldemort: "Stand aside. Stand aside, girl!" > > Which brings up an interesting thought. Lily's plea of "have mercy." I > suppose she could've just been stalling for time if she was completing a > complex spell, though I can't understand how you can work on a spell and beg > for mercy at the same time. Or she could have been a desperate mother > crying out for mercy of her child. Or . . . something else. Well - she *was* a desperate mother. "Take me instead". Mother's love is definately one thing that gives this thing power. Unless Lily > had a past history of some sort or another with Voldemort, the idea of her > asking him to have mercy is about like asking a wall to make tea. This is > the dark lord who thinks nothing of killing. Who has already killed many > witches and wizards, and has plans for many more. Who has every intention > of killing a 15 month old baby who is completely defenseless. Yet he stops > for a moment before Lily. Who begs him to "have mercy." What comes to Voldemort's reluctance - yes, that is the one thing that sets Lily's sacrifice apart from all other mothers. Only she was given the choice. Life-debt would explain it - considering how Dumbledore spoke of it. Lily the child may have saved Tom Riddle from some danger. It was her dying wish that Harry be saved. Her last words. This fact does, I believe, carry magical weight. Perhaps that's how the bond works: Death Wish is a binding duty to any who is indebted to the one who died... What did James say: "Take Harry to safety - I'll hold him back". Perhaps Snape feels the duty to fight Voldemort because of that, as well as keeping Harry out of danger to get killed. Voldemort knows that, I think... Left him forever. Also, Dumbledore knows it - so he can trust that Snape is against Voldemort. -- Finwitch From rvotaw at i-55.com Sun Aug 11 02:23:05 2002 From: rvotaw at i-55.com (Richelle Votaw) Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 21:23:05 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Draco Malfoy References: <20020810232715.164.qmail@web12903.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <001301c240de$07118020$99a2cdd1@istu757> No: HPFGUIDX 42447 > Richelle Votaw wrote: > > Either JKR accidentally got a great Latin meaning > for Malfoy (lose translation yes, but it works as well as some of the spells > latin meanings do), or it was intentional. Thoughts on that? Primrose responded: > My understanding is that Malfoy is French for "Bad Faith", and Draco is lating for "Dragon". I don't think that Malfoy was ever intended to be a Latin derivative. > primrose, new 'round here Look up Draco in Latin and you will also get snake. Voldemort can be translated from the French, but also from Latin with the same meaning. Although in Latin you can get two different translations. "Flight from death" and "Wish for death." Interesting, that. Anyway, since Latin is the mother language of French (and English for that matter), it's only natural that it can come from either French or Latin. the french "bad faith" could be a similar meaning as "wicked disgrace." Someone who is of bad faith could in turn be a disgrace. Although if you ask me, I can get a Latin translation from just about anything out there. :) Including Avada Kedavra (yes, I know, it's supposed to be aramic, and there's no k in Latin, but c has the hard k sound). Richelle From finwitch at yahoo.com Sat Aug 10 22:45:46 2002 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 22:45:46 -0000 Subject: The "Missing 24-hours" - an alternative take In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42448 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "R. MacDonald" wrote: > [R. MacDonald wrote] > > Hmm, Sounds a little like you're describing the "Quantum Leap" time travel > with-in the users own lifetime. However I don't recall any reference to the > device ever being used more man a few hours back, and like you noted, only > back. Also I don't think there was any changes to history. Hermoine used > the device to go to more than one class in the same timeframe, but didn't > change either experience, and in saving Sirius and the Hippogriff, they > acted more around the original timeline than into it. That's right -- they would have changed history by NOT going! So um-- they were supposed to do it. They did it and they had done it before. Dumbledore told them to do it (because he knew it was so). Their lives simply did a little circle in time. R. McDonald: > Myself, I can't understand the notion of being able to move in a time, and > not alter that time, but I think we should ask the question, why, if the > technology's was available to them, didn't Dumbledore use the Time- Turner to > change the events of Lily and James Death? Or if he couldn't change those > events, did he use the Time-Turner document the events themselves? Well, for your first question: a) it's magic and we can't except our physics to apply. b) If he had, Voldemort wouldn't have been defeated c) Of all the very *bad* things that have happened, we as mankind have hopefully learned something. d) Changing the course of history would have some terrible consequences - as Hermione tells Harry & Ron - though it only becomes in form or rules like "You must not be seen". e) It's not a matter of ability but of 'right'. f) Every choice, act etc. will make a difference. It would no longer be the same world - as you can't step into the same river twice... What comes to using Time Turner to document things-- well, perhaps - but I doubt it. We saw what it did to Hermione - and Dumbledore seems much too alert, awake, nice and not grumpy enough to be using Time Turner. Instead, he uses experience assisted with Pensieve, logical thinking - some form of magic unknown, a looking-glass or something and House-elves, teachers, students and possibly some others who come and tell him everything, as well as newspapers (Muggle and Wizard)... -- Finwitch From ruhgozler at yahoo.com Sat Aug 10 23:46:16 2002 From: ruhgozler at yahoo.com (Linda Williams) Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 16:46:16 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] The "Missing 24-hours" - another theory In-Reply-To: <002101c240ab$dc747480$069ecdd1@istu757> Message-ID: <20020810234616.30015.qmail@web11201.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 42449 > Meg writes: > > > It made me stop and think. Who could have taken > care of little Harry, if > Hagrid didn't (and I don't think he did)? Why Mrs. > Weasley , of course. Now > before someone throws rotten eggs at me, hear me > out. > Except that if I remember correctly the text does not indicate that Hagrid did anything other than go immediately to Godric Hollow, run into Sirius, borrow the motorcycle and take Harry straight to Privet Drive. There just doesn't seem to be anything pointing to Harry spending the day with anyone. No rotten eggs, just opinion. Linda ===== "Tripe, Sibyll?" - McGonagall, POA __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? HotJobs - Search Thousands of New Jobs http://www.hotjobs.com From bdmorrp at budget.state.ny.us Sat Aug 10 23:50:35 2002 From: bdmorrp at budget.state.ny.us (erisedstraeh2002) Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 23:50:35 -0000 Subject: Mars is Bright Tonight In-Reply-To: <3D54D843.23213.1593D6@localhost> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42450 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Shaun Hately" wrote: Shaun responded to my post by saying: > I've seen a couple of astronomical discussions relating to this - > here's an offer for anyone who wants it. I can easily generate > basic star and planet location maps for any date, and put them on a > website for people (it's not hard, I just have the software to do > it). Now me: Such good fortune to have an astronomer respond to my post (wonder if I could have anticipated it from looking at the night sky ?)! A most generous offer, thank you! Some dates that come to mind include the night Lily and James died (October 31, 1981) and the night of the detentions in the Forbidden Forest (May 26, 1992). But looking at such a map would be meaningless to me - would you be able to do some interpretation as well? Shaun also wrote: > I can give Opposition Dates for Mars, and there isn't one around > May 1992 - late November 1990 and early January 1993 are the > closest dates. Of course, that doesn't mean that in JKRs universe, > that necessarily applies. Now me again: Is there any other way to explain the centaurs' focus on the brightness of Mars that night other than that Mars was in opposition at the time? If not, then it could be that JKR wasn't trying to reconcile the dates to actual events (as the Lexicon points out, there are other time discrepancies, so perhaps JKR doesn't feel the need to make all of the dates make sense). So if this is the case, we might not be able to glean much from looking at maps of the night sky when certain key events happen. But then again, it could show something ! Cheers and thanks, Phyllis From purple_801999 at yahoo.com Sun Aug 11 01:52:08 2002 From: purple_801999 at yahoo.com (purple_801999) Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2002 01:52:08 -0000 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Re:_Did_Hagrid_apparate=3F_And_the_smell_in_Mrs._Figg=92s_house.?= In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42451 ephantom1 wrote- > Hi, > There are two small mysteries that have been bothering me after my > recent re-read of the books. > > After Hagrid puts Harry on the train back to the Dursley's after > their shopping trip, Harry blinks and Hagrid is gone. The only > explanation seems to be apparition, but it does not fit with Hagrid > who never completed his education, and is not that good at magic. How > could he be doing something that is said to be very advanced magic, > with which many fully qualified wizards do not bother? Possibly Hagrid used a Portkey that was set up for him to get back to Hogwarts.Or it was a literary device used to enhance Harry's sense of awe and wonderment at the new world that had opened up to him. > > The other is a seeming discrepancy between SS and GoF. In SS is > clearly says that Mrs. Figg's house smelled of cabbage. In GoF > however, when they enter the tents Harry notes that the furnishing > was similar to that of Mrs. Figg, but without the smell of cats. A > mistake? It has been speculated that the WW has decided a house full of doilies and smelling of cabbage is a good cover for a wizard posing as a Muggle. And since it's been revealed that Mrs. Figg and Arabella Figg are one and the same her home it's likely her house is enchanted to look and smell the way a Muggle house should to a wizard, whom by the way think ponchos and kilts make a good combo. -Olivia From mdemeran at hotmail.com Sun Aug 11 03:15:56 2002 From: mdemeran at hotmail.com (Meg Demeranville) Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 22:15:56 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] The "Missing 24-hours" - another theory References: <20020810234616.30015.qmail@web11201.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42452 Linda wrote: Except that if I remember correctly the text does not indicate that Hagrid did anything other than go immediately to Godric Hollow, run into Sirius, borrow the motorcycle and take Harry straight to Privet Drive. There just doesn't seem to be anything pointing to Harry spending the day with anyone. No rotten eggs, just opinion. But doing this could not have taken twenty-four hours to complete. That is why there is the "missing 24 hours" theory. Because Harry is taken from Godric's Hollow on Halloween and isn't seen again until midnight on November 1st (or would it be the 2nd?). Something had to be done with him during the day. Oh, and TAGWATCH gave the following: T.H.E. F.I.R.S.T.-M.E.M.O.R.Y. F.R.I.E.N.D. Taking Harry Extremelly Fast Into Really Secure and Trustable Mother, Embracing Molly who Opts to Receive the Youngster, Friendship Resulting, Interpretates Evanescing, Nuisant Day (Thank you Grey Wolf!) --Meg (still waiting for rotten eggs) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From jkusalavagemd at yahoo.com Sun Aug 11 03:28:25 2002 From: jkusalavagemd at yahoo.com (jkusalavagemd) Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2002 03:28:25 -0000 Subject: The Gryffindor Coat-of-Arms Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42453 I noticed the other day that the Scottish coat-of-arms is a red lion rampant on a field of gold (forget the fleury borders), which is the same as the Gryffindor arms with their colors reversed. My next thought was that it must be the other way 'round, of course. The Gryffindor coat-of-arms is the reverse of Scotland's, much as the "Red Cross" is the reverse of the Swiss flag, and for the same reason: to give honor by imitating. I have to think that this was done consciously by JKR. Well, that's all. I hope nobody thinks this is too trivial an observation. Haggridd From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Sun Aug 11 03:35:13 2002 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (bboy_mn) Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2002 03:35:13 -0000 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Re:_Did_Hagrid_apparate=3F_And_the_smell_in_Mrs._Figg=92s_house.?= In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42454 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "ephantom1" wrote: > Hi, > There are two small mysteries that have been bothering me after my > recent re-read of the books. > > After Hagrid puts Harry on the train back to the Dursley's after > their shopping trip, Harry blinks and Hagrid is gone. The only > explanation seems to be apparition, but it does not fit with Hagrid > who never completed his education, and is not that good at magic. How > could he be doing something that is said to be very advanced magic, > with which many fully qualified wizards do not bother? > > The other is a seeming discrepancy between SS and GoF. In SS is > clearly says that Mrs. Figg's house smelled of cabbage. In GoF > however, when they enter the tents Harry notes that the furnishing > was similar to that of Mrs. Figg, but without the smell of cats. A > mistake? bboy_mn replies: [sorry, I just cut my thumb so I'm typing one handed. Excuse any gross typing errors.] In PS/SS were it mentions Mrs. Figg and cabbage smell, it also mentions cats. Never been in a house with cats yet that didn't smell like cat poo. So I don't think the cat/cabbage controversy is really an inconsistance. Hagrid, strictly speaking Hagrid isn't allowed to do any magic, but Dumbledore seems to recognise that he is a perfectly capable and competent wizard, and is content to look the other way when Hagrid performs magic. Also, when Hagrid go to get Harry, he has been given special permission to engage in a limited amount of specific types of magic. For example, he was allowed to ply to get Harry, but once he has Harry, he's not allowed to do that anymore. He can't apparate or fly with Harry, so they take the underground. Once Harry is on the train, perhaps HAagrid is allowed to apparare back to where his broom is (assuming he flew using a broom) and then take the broom back to Hogwarts. Just some possibilities. bboy_mn From editor at texas.net Sun Aug 11 03:58:20 2002 From: editor at texas.net (Amanda Geist) Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 22:58:20 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] The Gryffindor Coat-of-Arms References: Message-ID: <005f01c240eb$56d9c600$f07e63d1@texas.net> No: HPFGUIDX 42455 Haggridd said > I noticed the other day that the Scottish coat-of-arms is a red lion > rampant on a field of gold (forget the fleury borders), which is the > same as the Gryffindor arms with their colors reversed. Ahem. You *can't* forget the border. It wouldn't be Scotland without that fleury-counter-fleury double tressure. Okay, on to your real point. > My next > thought was that it must be the other way 'round, of course. The > Gryffindor coat-of-arms is the reverse of Scotland's, much as the > "Red Cross" is the reverse of the Swiss flag, and for the same > reason: to give honor by imitating. >From the author's perspective, I think JKR may well have done this on purpose. Although the lion is the noblest of heraldic beasts, the griffin is right up there too for good connotations, it would have been a perfectly good (and more logical) charge for Gryffindor (given the obvious cant). However, England is rather lion-heavy, too--lions are *the* top-of-the-line charge, and I doubt that Scotland's having a lion is anything besides one thing on a long list of reasons she had. >From the perspective of inside the story, I don't know that it has ever been stated that the coats of the Houses were the coats of the founders. If Hogwarts was founded a thousand years ago, that was before heraldry really existed as we know it (i.e., the formal system with coats that were inherited). People *did* paint things on their shields further back, though; I find it totally reasonable that these were the emblems chosen by the Founders, but it's not canon. ANYway, the point being, Gryffindor's lion may well have been established before Scotland's was. How far back does the usage of the red lion go?Scotland may be the one extending the honor. The differences are small--Gryffindor's lion faces sinister, Scotland's faces dexter; the colors have been flipped, and Scotland has the tressure. > I have to think that this was > done consciously by JKR. I agree and I don't. I think much thought went into what she does, very, very, very much, but I also think part of her genius is that she manages to get these details *right* on a very subliminal level. I don't think she had any idea of all the resonances of the names she's chosen (although she clearly knew some), and look how applicable and correct the stuff that we find turns out to be. So I'm sure that the connection was there, but possibly not consciously, possibly just a factor in how the colors and animal "fit." She does that "fit" thing so very well. > Well, that's all. I hope nobody thinks this is too trivial an observation. Heraldry is never trivial. --Amanda From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Sun Aug 11 04:04:50 2002 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (bboy_mn) Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2002 04:04:50 -0000 Subject: The "Missing 24-hours" - another theory In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42456 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Meg Demeranville" wrote: > Linda wrote: Except that if I remember correctly the text does not indicate that Hagrid did anything other than go immediately to Godric Hollow, run into Sirius, borrow the motorcycle and take Harry straight to Privet Drive. There just doesn't seem to be anything pointing to Harry spending the day with anyone. No rotten eggs, just opinion. > > But doing this could not have taken twenty-four hours to complete. That is why there is the "missing 24 hours" theory. Because Harry is taken from Godric's Hollow on Halloween and isn't seen again until midnight on November 1st (or would it be the 2nd?). Something had to be done with him during the day. > > Oh, and TAGWATCH gave the following: > T.H.E. F.I.R.S.T.-M.E.M.O.R.Y. F.R.I.E.N.D. Taking Harry Extremelly Fast Into Really Secure and Trustable Mother, Embracing Molly who Opts to Receive the Youngster, Friendship Resulting, Interpretates Evanescing, Nuisant Day > > (Thank you Grey Wolf!) > > --Meg (still waiting for rotten eggs) > bboy_mn reponds: Voldemort comes to the Potter's on Holloween night, but I don't think the time of day has been established. The next day is the day Uncle Vernon see the cat (McGonagall) sitting on the fense and sees all the owls and see all the wizards out running around. That night (don't know exact time) Dumbledore visits Privet Drive and delivers Harry. So the whole day where McGonagall the cat sat outside Privet Drive is the missing 24 hours. I still don't see why people can't believe that Hagrid took care of Harry for a day. Those who claim that taking care of a baby is too complex for Hagrid, aren't taking into account magic and house-elves. I can easliy see Hargid taking care of the baby, but it doesn't seem like Hagrid went back to Hogwarts. If he did go to his hut at Hogwarts, it seems like everyone was too busy to stop by and see the baby as I'm sure they would have done if they knew Harry was there. Maybe Hagrid was back at his hut and just kept Harry's presents secret. Anyway, I'm not buying another grand conspiracy theory. It seems more than reasonable that Hagrid could take care of Harry for a day. Just took Harry back to his hut, took care of him for a day, got on Sirius motorcycle, flew south along the western coast of Scotland, flew just south of Britol and turned east to Surry and Privet drive. That's my story and I'm sticking to it. bboy_Mn bboy_mn From rvotaw at i-55.com Sun Aug 11 04:24:03 2002 From: rvotaw at i-55.com (Richelle Votaw) Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 23:24:03 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The "Missing 24-hours" - another theory References: Message-ID: <001f01c240ee$ed7bc1a0$50a0cdd1@istu757> No: HPFGUIDX 42457 bboy_mn writes: > I still don't see why people can't believe that Hagrid took care of > Harry for a day. Those who claim that taking care of a baby is too > complex for Hagrid, aren't taking into account magic and house-elves. > I can easliy see Hargid taking care of the baby, but it doesn't seem > like Hagrid went back to Hogwarts. If he did go to his hut at > Hogwarts, it seems like everyone was too busy to stop by and see the > baby as I'm sure they would have done if they knew Harry was there. While it is highly possible that Harry was in Hagrid's care the whole time, I guess it's part of the motherly instinct in me that somehow wants him to have been with Mrs. Weasley or some one like her. This had to be one very traumatized baby, I forgot to mention the fact earlier that besides his parents being killed, his mother right in front of him, the house did also fall down around him. That'll freak a person out. Anyway, there's also something about Molly Weasley's reaction when the twins tell her in SS/PS that the boy they saw was Harry Potter. Everyone else recognized him as Harry Potter, right? Because they instantly saw that he looked like James. But if she remembered him as that little 15 month old baby she wouldn't necessarily have been looking for a little James Potter running around. Also, something she said, "Poor dear--no wonder he was alone, I wondered." I can't quite put my finger on it, but somehow that statement interests me. How does she know that Harry Potter would've been alone? Is it common knowledge that Harry was living with his muggle aunt and uncle who would have no interest in bringing him to the platform? I thought the whole point was that no one (other than those in charge of placing him there) would know where he was. Argh, it's too late I'm just confusing myself now. Help?! Richelle From tub_of_earwax at yahoo.com Sun Aug 11 03:15:24 2002 From: tub_of_earwax at yahoo.com (tub_of_earwax) Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2002 03:15:24 -0000 Subject: Charachteristic/info on Bumblebees, Hippogryffs and Basilisks Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42458 Hey you all, a friend of mine was reading this mythology book and found a few things that he thought might interest me, as he put it. Here is what it said about the basilisk in that book. The Basilisk: the mythological king of serpents, the basilisk is a creature which is born from a spherical yolk-less egg, laid DURING THE DAYS OF SIRIUS, by a seven year old rooster hatched by a toad. It's breath shatters stone. (the rest we all know) Isn't this interesting? Laid during the days of Sirius. What do you think it means? I read a post from an astronomer (sorry I don't remember your name), would you care to put your views in? Also, if the basilisk's breath shatters stone, that might explain how he got out of the walls, and into the halls, but then how could he have gotten back in, or rebuild the walls, so to say. Then again, the whole breath shatters stones doesn't have to mean anything, because that's just a tiny detail, but the laid during the days of Sirius thing might bring some insight into Voldy, or Salazar, or being a parseltongue... A hippogryff is, in this book of this friend of mine a symbol of love. So all you H/H shippers, here's some more reason as to why you could say you're right: Hermione and Harry were riding the Hippogryff together (and all you non H/H shippers you could say it was because Ron was injured, so who knows actually, but still interesting, and just thought I'd bring it to your attention). I also saw this movie (starring Elijah wood (sp?) and Rachel leigh cook, and a bunch of other people I don't know by name) that's called: the bumblebee flies anyway. In this movie, they're conducting some experiments on cancer etc etc etc. Anyway, it's called project bumblebee, because of this fact about the bumblebee: The bumblebee can fly, but scientifically, this is not possible, because it's mass is too large for it's wingspan and force etc. But the bumblebee flies. One of the main theories, as to why the bumblebee does fly when it's not supposed to is the "mind over matter" theory. Now, Dumbledore is an old English word for bumblebee. JKR, knowing her, probably knew this. So how do you think this'll play into the story, do you think this'll have a role? Can't wait to hear your thoughts on these things, Lara. From jodel at aol.com Sun Aug 11 03:43:49 2002 From: jodel at aol.com (jodel at aol.com) Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 23:43:49 EDT Subject: Muggle/Magical genetic theories Message-ID: <18f.c36f59a.2a873775@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 42459 In a message dated 8/10/02 midgiecat (Brenda) writes: << I also have a thought or two about muggles/magic folk. How does a child become a witch or wizard with two muggle parents, like Hermione [and Lily], unless somewhere way back in their ancestry someone was married to a witch or wizard and it turns up in a later generation, like a recessive gene. >> My own suspicion is that there is a whole little group of gene combinations which can produce wizards. Also that a few rare branches of magic may require that a genetic component be present in order to truly master (true Divination as an example). But you have to inherit all, or most of the genes in one of these groups before the ability to produce and direct magic occurs. Every squib who ever left the wizarding community to make his fortune among the Muggles has contributed incomplete sets of wizarding genes to the general population. Every young wizard out sowing wild oats among the barmaids, every unidentified Muggle-born. Since wizards began. And, once the infant mortality rate began dropping in the 19th century, more of these "carriers" have been surviving to reproduce. And even more to the point, ever since the enclosure acts started forcing thousands of rural families off the land and into the towns, more sets of people who share the same incomplete genetic group with everyone in a ten mile radius in the country has a vastly higher chance of meeting up and pairing off with someone who may have the missing components to complete the set. By this time, there are probably thousands of what amount to Muggle-born squibs out there, and with the rising population in general, the result is that the births of Muggle-born wizards are becomming progressively more common. Malfoy's faction has some grounds for feeling under threat. (one or other of the interviews with Rowling, one that looked over some of her background notes, showed that she imagines the wizarding world to be about one quarter "purebloods", about one quarter Muggle-born and the rest of mixed ancestry. -JOdel From digitopolis_2000 at yahoo.com Sun Aug 11 04:01:30 2002 From: digitopolis_2000 at yahoo.com (digitopolis_2000) Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2002 04:01:30 -0000 Subject: Colin's camera - anigamus Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42460 I was under the impression that Colin had a normal muggle camera, with muggle film in it. Using the special potions would make the otherwise normal photos move. In GoF pg 332 (Bloomsbury) there is mention of Rita's photographer who had a "large black camera which was smoking slightly". I don't think Colin's was smoking. I also seem to remember that the photographer's camera gave out puffs of smoke when he took the pictures, but I can't find that reference ? if it is canon at all. A short question: what would happen if a person was killed in anigamus form? Would they revert to their normal form or remain whatever animal they were. Rita, for instance, is taking a big risk being a bug ? someone could very easily squish her! Val From lmccabe at sonic.net Sun Aug 11 07:50:49 2002 From: lmccabe at sonic.net (Linda C. McCabe) Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2002 00:50:49 -0700 Subject: Mars is Bright Tonight Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42461 Phyllis wrote: Mars was the Roman god of war, and was driven by rage and a stong desire for violence, especially mindless killing (sounds a lot like Voldemort to me!). Mars was said to have raped Rhea Silvia, a Vestal Virgin, and as a result, Reah Silvia had twin sons, Romulus and *Remus*. Since Remus is Prof. Lupin's first name, could this suggest that Lupin is related to Voldemort? Yikes! Mars was conceived when the Goddess Juno, who was annoyed that her husband Jupiter had produced *Minerva* from his head without her aid, asked the help of the Goddess Flora, who touched Juno with a magical herb and impregnated Juno with Mars. Since Minerva is Prof. McGonagall's first name, does this suggest that McGonagall had something to do with Voldemort's creation? Double yikes! Phyllis, I must say that I am much more versed in Greek Mythology than I am the Roman version. I am not familiar with the Juno/Flora/Mars connection. Switching back to Greek Mythology, Athena was born of the marriage between Zeus and the Titan Metis (goddess of Prudence.) Zeus was warned and he feared that if Metis had given birth to a son, that he would one day rise up and overthrow Zeus. This would be following the pattern of Cronos overthrowing his father Uranus and later Zeus overthrowing Cronos. Zeus wanted to prevent that from happening, but he depended on the wise counsel of Metis. So he came up with a plan: He played a game of shape-shifting with Metis. The Greek Gods and Goddesses were not confined to being Animagus with only one animal shape. Nope, they could change at will from animal to animal. When Metis chose to change into a fly, Zeus reverted back to his human form and sucked her into his mouth. She being immortal resided from then on in his head. Metis was pregnant when she began setting up shop in his cerebral cortex and she later began to hammer out an outfit for her young child. It was the pounding of the hammer on metal that drove Zeus insane. He asked his son Hesphaestus to split his head open and then Athena sprung fully grown from his head. Athena was the goddess of wisdom and victory. She despised her brother Ares (Mars) the god of war. He was bloodthirsty and didn't really care which side one as long as there was death, destruction and mayhem. About two months ago, there was a flurry of hedgehogs proclaiming that numerous characters in the Potterverse were Ever So Evil (ESE). Some I thought were interesting theories. One that I cannot support is the idea of Minerva McGonagall being ESE. That is simply because in the Potterverse Names Have Meaning. I cannot see how the Roman goddess of Wisdom and Victory could be evil. And I cannot see how Minerva McGonagall could have anything to do with the creation of Voldemort. It doesn't seem to fit in any way. As for Remus Lupin...I wonder if he has a brother. Athena (And yes, I took my alter ego's name from my *favorite* goddess. What's not to like? She's brilliant, on the winning side, wears armor and has a pet owl.) From digitopolis_2000 at yahoo.com Sun Aug 11 04:02:14 2002 From: digitopolis_2000 at yahoo.com (digitopolis_2000) Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2002 04:02:14 -0000 Subject: What is Magic? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42462 I read once that Science is based on two assumptions: 1. That there is order and logic in the Universe 2. That effect comes after cause. Even though, as someone suggested, the WW might make no logical sense whatsoever, I think that there is order to it because 1. It is located in this Universe which (supposedly) has order 2. (to a lesser extent) The fact that the information can be organised in such a manner as to be taught and that research takes place (i.e. Charlie and the Dragons) (The idea of effect and cause is a little fuzzy with the time turner, and certain `arrows of time' so I'll avoid it, because everyone will become confused, including myself.) Now it is very doubtful that JKR will have someone go off on a spiel about what magic is, since, in Potterverse, magic simply *is*. In other words, we may never truly know. However, based on what canon I can remember at the moment, here are my thoughts on Magic. Warning: There are lots of science bits in this; I hope I don't go off the deep end. I like to think that magic is woven into the fabric of space-time. Oftentimes, I think this too about good and evil (on other days, the idea is balderdash). In ancient times, people believed that the world was made up of elements: fire, wind, water, earth (eventually `ether' (space) joined this group). I'd like to add magic to this list. These are conceptual elements, unlike the physical elements of the Periodic Table that we use. Magic isn't physical ? it's not made up of atoms ? which leads me to believe that magic might be some sort of radiation. What we have is the electromagnetic spectrum, including light, infrared, ultraviolet light, radio waves, microwaves, X-rays etc. which are of different wavelengths. However, I have reason to believe that magic simply isn't an extension of the EM spectrum: 1. Muggles can't detect it using any instrument. Detection would rely on interaction between the radiation and something else, but that doesn't happen for muggles. 2. Magic interferes with electronic equipment which uses/gives off radiation in the EM spectrum. Now we have three ideas: (don't want to call them options, as they might be interrelated.) 1. There is another spectrum parallel to the EM spectrum that deals with magic. 2. Magic is a fundamental force or the manipulation of the fundamental forces. There are four ? weak nuclear, strong nuclear, gravitational and electromagnetic. 3. Two words: Quantum physics. People talk about the `magical-ness' of places/people, for example Hogsmeade is a totally magical village. Pictures of Earth from space show bright spots of light coming from large cities during the night. This is how I `see' the magic of a place ? as radiating from it. Magic interacts with waves in the EM spectrum, for example the invisibility cloak. Light waves seem to pass straight through ? like glass. And like glass, the person/thing under the cloak remains solid. However transparency is a property inherent in glass due to crystal structure, I believe. I don't think that the cloak can give properties like that, so it must mean that it somehow interacts with the light rays, bending them in some manner so that it appears that we can see straight through. This bending of light reminds me so much of space, where large bodies warp space-time due to gravity. This was Einstein's idea and was proven during an eclipse when a star that was supposed to be behind the sun, was seen next to it. The light from the star (radiation) travels a straight path, but when the path is bent, the path of the light is curved, and the position of the star appears changed. The reason I bring this up is that this relates to one of the fundamental forces ? gravity. Therefore, we could assume that magic is the manipulation of the forces. By influencing the forces we can control matter ? it's possible then that this is the underlying principle of magic. And now we move on to Quantum Physics (which I don't know much about/can't understand very well). In the Lexicon FAQ I came across this (which I shall quote here since I don't think I can explain it any better), which got me started on the idea of quantum physics at work. It's about the Time Turner: "In the scene where Harry and Hermione use the time-turner to rescue Buckbeak why didn't they replay the scene as many times as they needed to get it right? At first, this thought seems a reasonable question, but there are two factors that count against such an action. Firstly, there would be high chance that the pair would encounter an earlier Harry and Hermione, and, secondly, they would not be able to make further attempts if they had observed any sort of outcome. "To expand on the second of these points, the theory goes that, using the time-turner, people can only change the course of time if the outcome is uncertain or, "exists in a state of `Quantum Ambiguity' where it can go one way or the other". The rescue of Buckbeak was possible only because Harry and Hermione had not witnessed his death; they heard the axe fall, but they did not see him beheaded. Once they had rescued him, the ambiguity of the situation was resolved. "Applying this explanation to two other situations, when Hermione used the time-turner to squeeze in all those extra classes, she fell asleep and missed a Charms class, but the minute she was woken, the ambiguous state in her mind was resolved and the option of returning to take the class was lost. Another situation was when Harry witnessed himself creating the Patronus by the lake. In this case, Harry was only potentially on the other side of the lake and this ambiguity was resolved when he voluntarily saved his own life. "Could this be related to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, which holds that one cannot measure both the momentum and location of an electron with any accuracy at the same time? In other words, if an action (momentum) is resolved in one place (location), it becomes impossible to return to that place to achieve an alternative outcome. "In relation to, PoA there are many subtle clues to events caused by the time-turner. For example, when Harry, Ron and Hermione enter the entrance hall under the Invisibility Cloak, they hear departing footsteps and a door slamming and proceed to Hagrid's hut to comfort him over the death of Buckbeak. Later, after using the time-turner, Harry and Hermione appear in the entrance hall and hide in a broom cupboard, where Hermione hears herself, Ron and Harry outside, under the cloak, on their way to Hagrid's." Currently, lots of physicists are experimenting with quantum effects (for lack of the real term). They say that they've managed to bring particles to an `entangled' state. Extrapolating, they say that it could be key to creating teleportation devices (a la Star Trek). Apparation immediately come to mind ? disappear from one place, reappear almost instantly in another. This is basically what happens in Star Trek, basically what the scientists say they may eventually be able to do years from now ? and wizards do it all the time! Whew! Enough of this theoretical stuff for now. We can't only consider magic as an independent entity. After all, magic is significant because beings exist which can use it ? specifically humans. Non-magic and magic people are/seem exactly alike ? except for the obvious. Current thinking (what I've read so far) is that magical ability is due to genetic inheritance. This is plausible given that it seems magic runs in families (old wizarding families) The gene for magical ability has to be recessive; otherwise everyone would have the ability. Magic folk had to marry Muggles to keep from dying out. However, according to the rules of genetics their kids would have no magical ability whatsoever. If their kids had no magic in them, then to really keep the wizarding line going, the kids would have to marry other kids like themselves and hope their child has magic, or marry a true wizard. Both Hermione's parents would have to have the gene, and by luck of the draw, Hermione's got both copies. There is the possibility the gene is sex-linked, but I wont get into that today. Another factor must be at work, undermining or overriding the rules of genetics. I think I remember reading at the Lexicon that there are a certain number of magical people, and when one died, his magic went to another who was being born. I don't support this because: why would the wizards think they were going to die out? Someone, maybe from the population statistics section of the ministry, would have noticed. Another question is whether magic folk have magic in them, or, due to proteins produced by the genes, are somehow able to manipulate the magic around them. If there is a gene for magical *ability* I can't see how this relates to *being* magical ? a centaur, goblin etc. (How can they use magic anyway? Genes? I think not) Magic folk also have the ability to enchant mundane things ? Tom Riddle's diary for instance. In fact, most magical devices (in a list found at the Lexicon) seem to be enchanted objects ? the magic was introduced into them. There doesn't seem to be anything naturally "magical" except for living beings. Oh dear, I seemed to have run out of steam. Perhaps I'll continue some other time. Looking forward to hearing your thoughts, Valerie Parker From rsteph1981 at yahoo.com Sun Aug 11 04:33:20 2002 From: rsteph1981 at yahoo.com (Rebecca Stephens) Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 21:33:20 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] The "Missing 24-hours" - another theory In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020811043320.48534.qmail@web20006.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 42463 --- Meg Demeranville wrote: > Linda wrote: Except that if I remember > correctly the text does not indicate that Hagrid did > anything other than go immediately to Godric Hollow, > run into Sirius, borrow the motorcycle and take > Harry straight to Privet Drive. There just doesn't > seem to be anything pointing to Harry spending the > day with anyone. No rotten eggs, just opinion. > > > But doing this could not have taken twenty-four > hours to complete. That is why there is the "missing > 24 hours" theory. Because Harry is taken from > Godric's Hollow on Halloween and isn't seen again > until midnight on November 1st (or would it be the > 2nd?). Something had to be done with him during the > day. Well, that does kind of depend on how far away they were, and the speed of the motorcycle. One would assume it's not as fast as a plane (unless there's magic to deal with wind). If it's only twice as fast as car, then it's possible that the entire day was spent traveling, with just a few stops for diaper changes and feedings, isn't it? Rebecca ===== http://wychlaran.tripod.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? HotJobs - Search Thousands of New Jobs http://www.hotjobs.com From pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk Sun Aug 11 08:23:35 2002 From: pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk (bluesqueak) Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2002 08:23:35 -0000 Subject: The "Missing 24-hours" - another theory In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42464 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "bboy_mn" wrote: If he did go to his hut at > Hogwarts, it seems like everyone was too busy to stop by and see the > baby as I'm sure they would have done if they knew Harry was there. > > Maybe Hagrid was back at his hut and just kept Harry's presents secret. > > Anyway, I'm not buying another grand conspiracy theory. It seems > more than reasonable that Hagrid could take care of Harry for a day. > Just took Harry back to his hut, took care of him for a day, got on > Sirius motorcycle, flew south along the western coast of Scotland, > flew just south of Britol and turned east to Surry and Privet drive. > > That's my story and I'm sticking to it. > > bboy_Mn GEOGRAPHY CHECK FOR NON-UK RESIDENTS Bristol is quite a LONG way west of Surrey (by British standards - we think 100 miles is a long way). The standard west coast air route from Scotland to London (just flown it recently) is to fly over the coast of Lancashire, then go into the English Midlands, flying fairly directly from Birmingham to London/Surrey. The reason for this is that it misses all the big, hairy mountains that I certainly wouldn't like to try and fly over in a motorbike. [grin] If you fly over Bristol when travelling from Scotland to London, you are LOST. It's much more likely that Hagrid was either flying from Wales, or from the West Country (Devon, Cornwall), both of which would have him conceivably deciding to go over Bristol so he could then follow the lights on the muggle motorways up to Surrey. If he apparated back to his hut, we get stuck with the problem of 'if Hagrid can apparate with a baby, why couldn't Lily apparate away from Voldemort with Harry?' Pip From boggles at earthlink.net Sun Aug 11 08:59:57 2002 From: boggles at earthlink.net (Jennifer Boggess Ramon) Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2002 03:59:57 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Charachteristic/info on Bumblebees, Hippogryffs and Basilisks In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42465 At 3:15 AM +0000 8/11/02, tub_of_earwax wrote: > >Isn't this interesting? Laid during the days of Sirius. What do >you >think it means? It's what we currently call the Dog Days; it runs from early July through sometime in the second week or so in September. They're the days when Sirius, the Dog Star, travels close to the Sun in the sky from our point of view; early astronomer/astrologers in Egypt and Babylon believed that it added its heat to the Sun's during that time, which was why it was so hot, even though the Sun was at its height in late June (summer solstice is around June 21). Presumably the heat would allow a cold creature such as a toad to hatch a hen's egg, which has to be kept warm. Most versions of the basilisk legend don't include this, however. And of course JKR gets to write her beasts the way she wants to - her dragons don't seem to be any more intelligent than (mundane) dogs, for example. >The bumblebee can fly, but scientifically, this is not possible, >because it's mass is too large for it's wingspan and force >etc. This is an urban legend, BTW. It would be true if the bumblebee were larger, but tiny creatures can get by with wings that *look* too small - the bigger the critter, the larger in proportion the area of the wings needs to be to provide sufficient lift. -- - 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 fyredriftwood at yahoo.com Sun Aug 11 05:06:54 2002 From: fyredriftwood at yahoo.com (fyredriftwood) Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2002 05:06:54 -0000 Subject: More thoughts on Draco Malfoy (was Re: Draco Malfoy) In-Reply-To: <001301c240de$07118020$99a2cdd1@istu757> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42466 > > Primrose, new 'round here wrote: > > > > Either JKR accidentally got a great Latin meaning > > for Malfoy (lose translation yes, but it works as well as some of the > spells > > latin meanings do), or it was intentional. Thoughts on that? > > Primrose responded: > > > My understanding is that Malfoy is French for "Bad Faith", and Draco is > lating for "Dragon". I don't think that Malfoy was ever intended to be a > Latin derivative. > > primrose, new 'round here Now that we have the "name" down, I think we should go into more *detail* regarding everybody's favorite bad boy, since he deserves a FAQ on the Lexicon site =) What do we know about Draco Malfoy? 1. Slytherin, arch-rival of Harry Potter 2. Father is a Death Eater, rumored to be part of the Dark Arts assoc. as well. 3. Friends include Pansy, Goyle, Crabbe... favored by Professor Snape. My theories: 1. Draco has some sort of unhealthy obsession with Harry Potter.. whether it be either stalker-like or just an out of hatred. Draco pops out of no where just to insult Harry, then runs away. He has shown concern for Harry a few times (Ie: PoA when Harry gets a new broom and Draco asks Harry if he can think he can handle a broom with so many features) 2. Lucius to me seems like a caring father who would want nothing more than for his son to be the best he can be. He is NOT abusive as played up in the fandom, but rather is tough on him... he desires for his son to be the very best in his class, and is insulted that a Mudblood is better academically than his own son, who is a pureblood. 3. How did the Malfoys obtain such a huge fortune/sum of money? This money has caused Lucius to not work in both books 3 and 4. I'll post more when I can think of it. =) From drednort at alphalink.com.au Sun Aug 11 09:22:23 2002 From: drednort at alphalink.com.au (Shaun Hately) Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2002 19:22:23 +1000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Mars is Bright Tonight In-Reply-To: References: <3D54D843.23213.1593D6@localhost> Message-ID: <3D56B96F.15300.BCC853@localhost> No: HPFGUIDX 42467 On 10 Aug 2002 at 23:50, Phyllis (erisedstraeh2002) wrote: > Such good fortune to have an astronomer respond to my post (wonder if > I could have anticipated it from looking at the night sky ?)! A > most generous offer, thank you! Some dates that come to mind include > the night Lily and James died (October 31, 1981) and the night of the > detentions in the Forbidden Forest (May 26, 1992). But looking at > such a map would be meaningless to me - would you be able to do some > interpretation as well? I can certainly explain what the maps show - as for interpretation, I'm an astronomer - not an astrologer. I am concerned with the science of astronomy - not things like horoscopes, star signs, etc, that are covered in the areas of astrology, and I really can't give any commentary on that - but there may well be people who understand astrology on the list, and if they'd like to use the maps I put up, they are welcome to - given the Harry Potter universe does make use of divination and the like, such interpretations might be rather interesting. I have put up Skymaps for England on October 31/November 1, 1981, and Scotland on May 26/27 1992 at http://www.alphalink.com.au/~drednort/harrystars.html I'll talk about the Scotland one a bit below - but even with my limited astronomical knowledge, something quite unusual strikes me about the October 31 England map - from 7.03pm (when Mars set) till 5.40am (when Saturn rose), there were no planets in the sky over England - that's an unusually long period for there to be not one of the 9 major planets visible. Phyllis: > Is there any other way to explain the centaurs' focus on the > brightness of Mars that night other than that Mars was in opposition > at the time? If not, then it could be that JKR wasn't trying to > reconcile the dates to actual events (as the Lexicon points out, > there are other time discrepancies, so perhaps JKR doesn't feel the > need to make all of the dates make sense). So if this is the case, > we might not be able to glean much from looking at maps of the night > sky when certain key events happen. But then again, it could show > something ! Well, with regards to the brightness of Mars. Astronomers measure the brightness of objects in the sky, in terms of 'visual magnitude' - it's a scale of numbers we use to indicate how bright something appears. The lower the number, the brighter the object. The naked eye can see about as high as Magnitude 6.5. The sun is magnitude -26.5, a full moon is -12.5, the brightest star is Sirius at magnitude -1.5. The magnitude of stars remains pretty constant - that of planets changes based on a number of factors - most importantly how far away from us they are. Mars can be anywhere from Magnitude -2 to Magnitude 2. Calculations show me that for 26th May 1992, Mars was at approximately Magnitude 1.18 - in other words, in the fainter part of its cycle. The bigger problem might be the fact that it didn't rise until a little after 2am - but that's another issue... I'm going to look at the night sky over Scotland (I'm actually using Glasgow for anyone who wants precision - but Scotland is small enough, it doesn't make a lot of difference) around 3.00am, on the 27th May 1992 (the morning of 26/27th). The reason for choosing this time is that it allows Mars to actually be visible to Ronan. We know the detention started around 11pm, and three and a half hours to the time they encountered Ronan does seem quite a long time, but Filch did seem to expect that whatever they had to do would last until dawn. Mars is at magnitude 1.18 - even though it's at the fainter part of its cycle, it is always one of the brightest objects in the sky. At 3.30am, 26/5/1992, of the other bright planets - Mercury, Venus, Jupiter, and Saturn, only Saturn is actually up (at magnitude 0.44 in the Constellation Capricorn). The moon is visible. There are around 16 or 17 stars that are brighter than magnitude 1.18. Of these, the following are visible: Altair Capella Arcturus Pollux Vega Antares Spica Including the moon, Mars is the 9th brightest object in the sky over Scotland at that time. Given that Hogwarts seems to be a fair distance from any cities, it probably has good seeing in astronomical terms - so Mars would be the 9th brightest object out of thousands visible. It'd stand out. Especially where it is located - yes, there are seven brighter stars up there somewhere, but none are anywhere near Mars - the closest bright object (except the Moon) are Alpheratz and Hamal - and neither of them are below magnitude 2. Mars isn't unusually bright on 26th/27th May 1992 - but it is bright enough to dominate the northeastern sky over Scotland. I don't think it's unreasonable that Ronan would have commented on that. Yours Without Wax, Dreadnought Shaun Hately |webpage: http://www.alphalink.com.au/~drednort/thelab.html (ISTJ) |email: drednort at alphalink.com.au | ICQ: 6898200 "You know the very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. They don't alter their views to fit the facts. They alter the facts to fit the views. Which can be uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that need altering." The Doctor - Doctor Who: The Face of Evil | Where am I: Frankston, Victoria, Australia From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Sun Aug 11 09:49:57 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2002 09:49:57 -0000 Subject: The "Missing 24-hours" - another theory In-Reply-To: <20020811043320.48534.qmail@web20006.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42468 Rebecca Stephens wrote: > --- Meg Demeranville wrote: > > But doing this could not have taken twenty-four > > hours to complete. That is why there is the "missing > > 24 hours" theory. Because Harry is taken from > > Godric's Hollow on Halloween and isn't seen again > > until midnight on November 1st (or would it be the > > 2nd?). Something had to be done with him during the > > day. > > Well, that does kind of depend on how far away they > were, and the speed of the motorcycle. One would > assume it's not as fast as a plane (unless there's > magic to deal with wind). If it's only twice as fast > as car, then it's possible that the entire day was > spent traveling, with just a few stops for diaper > changes and feedings, isn't it? > > > Rebecca England measures som 700 km North to South, and at 30 km/hour you can travel that distance in a day. Obviously, a motorbike is way faster than that, and I don't think Godric's Hollow is someplace in Scotland, more in the middle of Britain. For the sake of discussion, let's say it's 400 km away from Privet Drive. A normal car can do 100 km/hour, and you're suggesting twice that speed: 200 km/hour, which a motorbike on a empty, straight road can do easily (and thus, also if it could fly). An easy math will tell you that it takes you 2 hours to cover that distance, say three with frecuent and prolongued stops for diapers, etc. At the most, it would take 4 hours. No, "they spent all the day flying" makes no sense. They've had to stop for a *long* while to explain how they could've vanished for 24 hours. The theories around the missing day try to explain why, where and when that stop took place. Hope that helps, Grey Wolf From jfaulkne at sas.upenn.edu Sun Aug 11 09:55:55 2002 From: jfaulkne at sas.upenn.edu (Jen Faulkner) Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2002 05:55:55 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Draco Malfoy Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42469 On Sat, 10 Aug 2002, Richelle Votaw wrote: > Look up Draco in Latin and you will also get snake. 'Draco' generally does mean 'dragon' in Latin. It also is the name of a contellation, the cohort's standard, a sea creature, a type of water vessel, a vine, and (in Ecclesiastic Latin) the Devil. In Latin, it properly refers to types of serpents of the "tame sort, esp. the Epidaurian, being kept as pets by luxurious Romans;" the usual word for 'snake' is 'serpens' ('one who creeps') or 'anguis'. Dragons are, of course, a type of serpent. (See Lewis&Short, s.v. 'draco': http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059&query=entry%3D%2314774&layout=&loc=Draco2) > Voldemort can be translated from the French, but also from Latin with > the same meaning. Although in Latin you can get two different > translations. "Flight from death" and "Wish for death." Interesting, > that. The possible character interpretations are kind of neat if one thinks of the vol part as being related to Latin volo, velle -- does Voldemort deep down crave death? is that why he couldn't kill baby Harry? --, but it's an unlikely etymology. The Latin preposition 'de' does not work like the French 'de', and would never be an element in a phrase like 'wish for death', even if it meant 'for', which it doesn't. (It means 'from, down from; about, concerning'.) 'Flight', in the sense of 'escape', would actually need to use the root fug- (as in 'fugitive'), since volo, volare refers to physically flying (as through the air). If we're attempting to construct a meaning for Voldemort's name, it makes most sense to assume that it is from French, since one can actually break it down into words 'vol de mort', 'theft of death'. (Again, the French 'vol', 'flight', means physical flight, not fleeing.) 'Theft of death' seems to describe Voldemort's basic goal, immortality, pretty well. Latin etymologies, as well as being difficult, don't do that. > Anyway, since Latin is the mother language of French (and English for > that matter), it's only natural that it can come from either French or > Latin. French, like the other Romance languages, is certainly descended from Latin (while English, being a Germanic language, is not), but there's not a simple transitive relationship in meanings between them. Just because a word means 'X' in Latin does not guarantee it means 'X' in French. It can make a huge difference which language the word directly comes from etymologically when postulating meanings based on etymology. > the french "bad faith" could be a similar meaning as "wicked > disgrace." Someone who is of bad faith could in turn be a disgrace. I was rather wondering how you got 'wicked disgrace' as a meaning for 'Malfoy'. What root are you thinking of for 'disgrace'? I can't think of anything besides 'flagitium', and that's hardly likely to be a source for the 'foy'. And while it's true that bad faith could lead to a disgrace, there can be little doubt that 'bad faith' is indeed the meaning of the name, since, again, there are actual French words involved (and JKR taught, unless I'm mistaken, French). 'Foy' comes from Latin 'fides', 'faith', so it matters little in this case which language one thinks of as the ultimate source of the name, but it is clear that it's French in origin by the form. And 'bad faith' is a wonderful surname for the treacherous Malfoys. --jen :) * * * * * * Jen's HP fics: http://www.sas.upenn.edu/~jfaulkne/fan/hp.html (URL change!!) Snapeslash listmom: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/snapeslash Yes, I *am* the Deictrix. From pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk Sun Aug 11 12:57:01 2002 From: pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk (bluesqueak) Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2002 12:57:01 -0000 Subject: Blowin' in the wind [FILK] Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42470 To the tune of Blowin' in the Wind, by Bob Dylan. Clip can be found at: http://www.bobdylan.com/albums/freewheelin.html SCENE: Bare stage, with spotlighted JKR with acoustic guitar in the centre; chorus of Listies and Publishers to her right and left. LISTIES: How many posts on ol' Snape's life debts Before we all see the light? Yes, 'n' what blind roads must a list walk down Before we can read Book Five? Yes, 'n' how many times must the can(n)on's all fire Before this damm 'Phoenix' flies? JKR: The answer, my friends, is blowin' in the wind The answer is blowin' in the wind. PUBLISHERS: How many times must we say "not yet Before we can say that it's here? Yes, 'n' how many contracts will we rewrite Before there's a one that's sincere? Yes, 'n' how many readers can we still keep If it's not come out by next year? JKR: The answer, my friends, is blowin' in the wind The answer is blowin' in the wind. JKR: How many times must I look for FLINTS Before I know there are none? Yes, 'n' how many plots must I rethink Before the holes are all gone? Yes, 'n' how many scenes must I rewrite Before it's finally done? LISTIES AND PUBLISHERS: The answer, dear friend, is blowin' in the wind The answer is blowin' in the wind. Pip!Squeak. From hermonieswand at aol.com Sun Aug 11 14:53:00 2002 From: hermonieswand at aol.com (hermonieswand at aol.com) Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2002 10:53:00 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] life debt to harry Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42471 I was thinking, if a life debt can be as abstract as to carry on to someone son when the reciever dies... then couldnt it be as abstarct to include all the petrified students and ginny in life debt to harry? And Snape was going to kill Black and lupin in the shack (sort of) so arent they now in debt to harry??? honeyduke [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Caliway26 at ns.sympatico.ca Sun Aug 11 15:00:54 2002 From: Caliway26 at ns.sympatico.ca (R. MacDonald) Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2002 12:00:54 -0300 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The "Missing 24-hours" -a question about them In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42472 As I am fairly new to this group, I wonder if someone can tell me if JKR has aver actually acknowledged the missing 24 hrs, or is she simply not commenting on it, hoping that it will blow over (And as a Note to JKR: Don't hold you're breath). I've looked around the FAQ and didn't notice it, and I can't see it in any JKR-chat I read. I'm just trying to figure out if it's Canon, or if it's just something readers noticed and editors didn't. R. MacDonald ICQ #15170395 Caliway26 at ns.sympatico.ca [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Caliway26 at ns.sympatico.ca Sun Aug 11 15:45:09 2002 From: Caliway26 at ns.sympatico.ca (R. MacDonald) Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2002 12:45:09 -0300 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The "Missing 24-hours" a Time Turner Paradox In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42473 From: finwitch [mailto:finwitch at yahoo.com] Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The "Missing 24-hours" - an alternative take That's right -- they would have changed history by NOT going! So um-- they were supposed to do it. They did it and they had done it before. Dumbledore told them to do it (because he knew it was so). Their lives simply did a little circle in time. [R. MacDonald writes] Actually I was thinking more along the lines of: History cannot be changed, because for them, it has been written. To really confuse the explanation, if events happened in an A, B, C, and D pattern, the time-turner can move you back from C to B, but C would always be C, and D would always be D. the sequence of written events cannot be altered. The only event that could be changed would be E (the next unwritten event). [R. MacDonald] From: finwitch [mailto:finwitch at yahoo.com] Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The "Missing 24-hours" - an alternative take Well, for your first question: a) it's magic and we can't except our physics to apply. b) If he had, Voldemort wouldn't have been defeated c) Of all the very *bad* things that have happened, we as mankind have hopefully learned something. d) Changing the course of history would have some terrible consequences - as Hermione tells Harry & Ron - though it only becomes in form or rules like "You must not be seen". e) It's not a matter of ability but of 'right'. f) Every choice, act etc. will make a difference. It would no longer be the same world - as you can't step into the same river twice... [R. MacDonald writes] I think we are putting way to much thought into this, and it's great IMHO. But here are some responses to your thoughts. A) Magic is simply Science we haven't yet discovered. I forget who first said that but I always liked that quote. In this case though, it tells us there has to be some rhyme or reason to the Wizarding world. B) Actually I think the sudden arrival would force a confrontation between Voldamort and Dumbledore. As apposed to Voldy surviving, he could have been finished off once and for all. C) & D) I'll have to let these ones slip by. E) Here it becomes a moral question. Which is the 'right' thing: letting the events flow as they happened, where 10 yrs later an orphaned boy must face the greatest foe the Wizard world has ever dealt with, or the final defeat of Voldamort and the Happy ever after of the Potter family. F) and that point goes back to the previous portion where you can't change a written past. Interestingly enough this makes everything here pretty much moot, but a fun argument none the less. Ray R. MacDonald ICQ #15170395 Caliway26 at ns.sympatico.ca 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 flower_fairy12 at yahoo.co.uk Sun Aug 11 16:23:58 2002 From: flower_fairy12 at yahoo.co.uk (flower_fairy12) Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2002 16:23:58 -0000 Subject: The "Missing 24-hours" - another theory In-Reply-To: <001f01c240ee$ed7bc1a0$50a0cdd1@istu757> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42474 Richelle wrote: > How does she know that Harry Potter would've been alone? Is it common > knowledge that Harry was living with his muggle aunt and uncle who would > have no interest in bringing him to the platform? I thought the whole point > was that no one (other than those in charge of placing him there) would know > where he was. Argh, it's too late I'm just confusing myself now. Help?! Apart from the fact that he has no parents, on page 75 (UK), Ron says to Harry: "I Heard you went to live with muggles. What are they like?" So either everyone in the WW knows about it, or Molly probably already knew and told her kids. Rosie From bdmorrp at budget.state.ny.us Sun Aug 11 17:20:23 2002 From: bdmorrp at budget.state.ny.us (erisedstraeh2002) Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2002 17:20:23 -0000 Subject: Mars is Bright Tonight In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42475 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Linda C. McCabe (Athena) wrote: > As for Remus Lupin...I wonder if he has a brother. Now me: Oooooooooh - great suggestion! There was some recent discussion about what jobs Remus Lupin might have had in the past, given that he's had trouble finding/keeping work due to his monthly werewolf transformations. Perhaps he has a brother named Romulus, and the "Professor R. J. Lupin" stamped on his briefcase is his brother's name? I don't believe there is mention of Remus' middle name anywhere in the text (if there is, please correct me). Maybe his brother, Romulus J. Lupin, was a professor who turned to the dark side, joined up with Voldemort and fought against his brother Remus? That could really make for some interesting plot twists! A "Romulus Lupin" is not mentioned in Voldemort's accounting of the Death Eaters in Ch. 33 of GoF, but not all of the Death Eaters are identified ("Some of the Death Eaters he passed in silence," p. 651 Scholastic hardcover edition). I don't believe Minerva McGonagall and Remus Lupin are ever-so-evil, either, but then again, until the end of PoA, I believed Scabbers was only a rat... Cheers, Phyllis From eloiseherisson at aol.com Sun Aug 11 19:10:05 2002 From: eloiseherisson at aol.com (eloiseherisson at aol.com) Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2002 15:10:05 EDT Subject: =?UTF-8?Q?Re:=20[HPforGrownups]=20Did=20Hagrid=20apparate=3F=20A?= =?UTF-8?Q?nd=20the=20smell=20in=20Mrs.=20Figg=E2=80=99s=20house.=20?= Message-ID: <8.2ab054fa.2a88108d@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 42476 In a message dated 11/08/2002 02:36:45 GMT Standard Time, ephantom1 at yahoo.com writes: > After Hagrid puts Harry on the train back to the Dursley's after > their shopping trip, Harry blinks and Hagrid is gone. The only > explanation seems to be apparition, but it does not fit with Hagrid > who never completed his education, and is not that good at magic. How > could he be doing something that is said to be very advanced magic, > with which many fully qualified wizards do not bother? Eloise: Sudden disappearance is a characteristic of many (all?) the odd people Harry meets before he knows he is a wizard and whom we understand in retrospect to be members of the WW. I wonder if all of them apparate? I have wondered if in fact there are other ways for wizard folk to make themselves inconspicuous, much in the way a Muggle magician might use some kind of distraction technique to draw attention away from what he is doing, only in this case utilising 'real' magic. I agree that it seems unlikely, though not impossible, that Hagrid could apparate (I wonder if he would be *allowed* to take the test?), but the sudden disappearance of one so large takes some explaining. > > > The other is a seeming discrepancy between SS and GoF. In SS is > clearly says that Mrs. Figg's house smelled of cabbage. In GoF > however, when they enter the tents Harry notes that the furnishing > was similar to that of Mrs. Figg, but without the smell of cats. A > mistake? Eloise: Perhaps the tent smells of cabbages too? (In order to give it that real Muggle flavour, in case anyone from the site management looks in.) Newer members of the list may have missed posts that pointed out that cabbage smells are associated with Polyjuice Potion, leading to all sorts of theorising about Mrs Figg and her true identity/appearance. Eloise who's always wondered how exactly Hagrid flew to the island in the first place (wonderful visions of him using his umbrella, Mary Poppins-like) and how the Dursleys got back to the mainland after Hagrid and Harry had taken the boat). > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From hunibuni22 at webtv.net Sun Aug 11 18:46:54 2002 From: hunibuni22 at webtv.net (tjbailey24) Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2002 18:46:54 -0000 Subject: Missing 24hrs/apparating/forbidden forest Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42477 I have realized one thing that might be of interest or at least something to keep in mind. Harry was 15 mo. old the night of his parents demise, which means he was far less of a baby that we are assuming. The need for *feeding* and such are not as frequent as it would be for an infant. At fifteen months, a child can speak (some), walk, definately crawl and eats mostly table food, so I imagine the caring of Harry would have been relatively simple and of course Hagrid could handle it on his own. Also, a question as to "why didn't Lily just take Harry the night Voldemort came to destroy them, and apparate" (I'm using my own words, thats not how it came out of a post)? Do we know that anyone can apparate *with* another? If so, why didn't Arthur Weasley just take Harry and apparate away with him from the Dursley's (when they picked him up for the Quidditch world cup GoF) instead of sending him back with Floo powder? I don't think we've ever seen anyone apparated with another. Please, do correct me if I'm wrong! Another thought has crossed my mind as well... we all know that Professor Lupin is a werewolf and with the exception of his *mindframe* during a full moon, is quite likable. What I'm wondering is, aren't there werewolves in the forbidden forest as well? I seem to remember either Draco or Ron stating in exclamation, (before entering the forest), "..they're werewolves in there...". Well, then are we to assume that when there isn't a full moon, that there are regular men walking around the forbidden forest? I find that hard to believe with all the other monstrous creatures about! Also, is there a spell on the boundaries of the forest keeping all the creatures inside of it or do they stay within the forrest on their own free will? Looking forward to all your replies! Tara From pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk Sun Aug 11 19:45:49 2002 From: pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk (bluesqueak) Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2002 19:45:49 -0000 Subject: Snape's Yesterdays [FILK] Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42478 To the tune of Yesterday, by John Lennon and Paul McCartney MIDI can be found at: http://gurolcanbek.tripod.com/100hits/song005.html Dedicated to Darrin Burnett. SCENE: Snape sitting alone in his office, brooding over times past. SNAPE: Yesterday On Lord Voldy's team I loved to stay, Now at Hogwarts I must make my way. Oh, I believe in yesterday. Suddenly, Not the heartless fiend I used to be, And now Potter's lording over me. Oh, yesterday went suddenly. Why I had to go I don't know, I couldn't say: I saw it was wrong, But I long for yesterday. Yesterday, Friends who games of real torture play, Now with wimps I've got to side today. Oh, I believe in yesterday. Mm mm mm mm mm Pip (who doesn't write a filk for ages and then finds two come along at once). From eloiseherisson at aol.com Sun Aug 11 19:47:53 2002 From: eloiseherisson at aol.com (eloiseherisson at aol.com) Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2002 15:47:53 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Missing 24hrs/apparating/forbidden forest Message-ID: <174.cceff62.2a881969@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 42479 Tara: > I have realized one thing that might be of interest or at least something to > keep in mind. Harry was 15 mo. old the night of his parents demise, which > means he was far less of a baby that we are assuming. The need for > *feeding* and such are not as frequent as it would be for an infant. At > fifteen months, a child can speak (some), walk, definately crawl and eats > mostly table food, so I imagine the caring of Harry would have been > relatively simple and of course Hagrid could handle it on his own. Personally, I find (sleep-deprivation aside!) that small infants are infinitely easier to care for than 15 month olds. They stay where you put them, don't put themselves into danger, don't attempt to argue back, eat what they're given (milk!) etc. In addition, the 15 month old is going to be much more distressed by the situation. A small baby will accept care from anyone. By 15 months, he's going to want his mum. The thought of taking a 15 month old child on a flying motorbike is distinctly frightening. (As is the thought of leaving a 15 month old unsupervised on a doorstep at the beginning of November). > > Also, a question as to "why didn't Lily just take Harry the night Voldemort > came to destroy them, and apparate" (I'm using my own words, thats not how > it came out of a post)? Do we know that anyone can apparate *with* another? > If so, why didn't Arthur Weasley just take Harry and apparate away with him > from the Dursley's (when they picked him up for the Quidditch world cup > GoF) instead of sending him back with Floo powder? I don't think we've ever > seen anyone apparated with another. Please, do correct me if I'm wrong! No, you're right and the consensus of the list has been that it seems to be impossible to apparate with someone else. > > Another thought has crossed my mind as well... we all know that Professor > Lupin is a werewolf and with the exception of his *mindframe* during a full > moon, is quite likable. What I'm wondering is, aren't there werewolves in > the forbidden forest as well? I seem to remember either Draco or Ron > stating in exclamation, (before entering the forest), "..they're werewolves > in there...". Well, then are we to assume that when there isn't a full > moon, that there are regular men walking around the forbidden forest? I > find that hard to believe with all the other monstrous creatures about! > Also, is there a spell on the boundaries of the forest keeping all the > creatures inside of it or do they stay within the forrest on their own free > will? It has been suggested that the 'werewolves in the Forbidden Forest' thing actually started with Remus (in other words, there aren't really werewolves in there, although Hagrid never says as much). But JKR (or Tom Riddle, at least) also made an error in suggesting that Hagrid was able to attempt to rear werewolves under his bed, so I think occasionally the word has been used a little loosely. Eloise [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From jodel at aol.com Sun Aug 11 19:06:53 2002 From: jodel at aol.com (jodel at aol.com) Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2002 15:06:53 EDT Subject: McGonagall, Hagrid, 24 hours & another Pettigrew mystery Message-ID: <170.11f750be.2a880fcd@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 42480 In a message dated 8/11/02 bboy_Mn writes: << I can easliy see Hargid taking care of the baby, but it doesn't seem like Hagrid went back to Hogwarts. If he did go to his hut at Hogwarts, it seems like everyone was too busy to stop by and see the baby as I'm sure they would have done if they knew Harry was there. >> If Hagrid did NOT return to Hogwarts how did McGonagall get the information of where Dumbledore was going to be that night out of him? Dumbledore is the Headmaster. McGonagall is his deputy (we will assume). It stands to reason that Dumbledore was away from his office from the moment that it was known that Voldemort's attack had somehow gone awry (sometime Halloween Night) until after he left Harry on the Dursleys' doorstep. While we do not know for sure that McGonagall was already the deputy headmistress at the tme of Voldemort's defeat, it does seem likely. In which case she was probably left in charge. In order for her to get information out of Hagrid, she would have needed to know that Hagrid HAD information, and she would have needed to actually encounter him in order to get it out of him. I suggest; Hagrid returns to Hogwarts halloween night with Harry probably by portkey. (Portkeys, after all, DO work on Hogwarts grounds.) Dumbledore is already at the MoM. McGonagall, is still awake and waiting for news. Harry is probably howling his head off. Minerva heasrs a howling infant and goes in search. She meets up with Hagrid as he is smuggling Harry out of the castle, after having spoken to Albus over the Floo connection or whatever. Hagrid is very good at general stonewalling but not so good at keeping secrets. Minerva doesn't get very many direct answers out of him, but she does manage to get the "4 Privit drive, tomorrow night" info, and some clue as to the child's identity. She extrapolates that the child's parents must be dead. They get the child treated at the imfirmary and Minerva reccomends that Hagrid keep him concealed in his hut. By breakfast time it is clear that somehow the news of Voldemort's defeat has leaked. There is clearly not much teaching acomplished today. She cancels her classes, leaves the other three house Heads in charge and apparates to Privit drive to wait for Dumbledore. At some time during the day Sirius Black shows up at Hogwarts. He was too late at Godric's Hollow to witness the attack or to meet up with Hagrid, but he hung around in his animagus form (which not even Dumbledore knew about) to listen to what the Ministry investigators had to say about events. At some point during the investigation Dumbledore showed up with Ministry officials. That's how Sirius got the news that Harry had survived and that Hagrid had taken him back to Hogwarts. Dumbledore probably also mentioned his intention of sending Harry to his mother's relatives. Sirius was the child's godfather, and he may have met Petunia Dursley at some point during his and Lily's time at Hogwarts and wouldn't have thought much of that idea. He raced off (on his motorcycle) to Hagrid and made a valiant attempt to get Hagrid to turn Harry over to him, instead. Hagrid is very, VERY good at stonewalling. Once Sirius realized that he was not going to be able to "save" Harry from the Dursleys, he decided that at least he would avenge James and Lily's deaths. He "lent" Hagrid the motorcycle, hurried to Hogsmeade and disapperated. The loan of the motorcycle was something in line with "putting his affairs in order", he fully expected to be in Azkaban for killing Pettigrew by nightfall. The shock of Pettigrew making a catastrophic and complete getaway, leaving him to do exactly that is was what pushed him over the edge into his hysterical laughing binge. McGonagall, in her stakeout at the Dursleys' missed all of this. By the time Albus showed up at the Dursleys, she was probably the least informed witch in all the UK. Side note: We are all familiar with Dumbledore's theory that Harry's proximity to Voldemort's distruction has resulted in his having been granted some of Voldemort's power. But there is strong circumstantial evidence which suggests that Pettigrew was also at or near ground zero. What did he get from his proximity to that event? Well, Voldemort's wand obeys him. (Another bit of circumstantial evidence that it was the overlay of Tom Riddle's power which prompted that wand's brother to choose Harry) He has sufficient power to perform the killing curse. We don't know what else. Can Peter also talk to snakes these days? And this suggests that it wasn't just a random case of using what was available that led Voldemort to demand the flesh of this particular servant in enginering his return. That was quite the little "family" reunion there in the graveyard in Little Hangleton... I'd say the multiple ties between Riddle and Harry may go in more than two directions. And that life debt of Peter's to Harry is as much of a wild card as the reward of a silver hand to a servant who has a werewolf for an enemy. Not we've deffinitely NOT seen the last of Peter Pettigrew. And I suspect that as much as he may like to scuttle about in the background, he isn't going to stay there. -JOdel From bdmorrp at budget.state.ny.us Sun Aug 11 18:31:55 2002 From: bdmorrp at budget.state.ny.us (erisedstraeh2002) Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2002 18:31:55 -0000 Subject: Fake!Moody's "Long, Low Hiss" Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42481 We've endlessly discussed the possible meaning of the "gleam of something like triumph in Dumbledore's eyes" when Harry tells Dumbledore that Voldemort used his blood in Voldemort's re-embodiment potion. However, Fake!Moody also has a reaction to this news. GoF, p. 674 (Scholastic hardcover ed.) "'What did the Dark Lord take from you?' said Moody. 'Blood,' said Harry...Moody let out his breath in a *long, low hiss.*" Since we don't know that Moody is really polyjuiced Crouch Jr. at this point (on the first reading, that is!), we think that Moody is on Harry's side and is reacting appropriately to the news that Harry was cut. But on second and subsequent readings (it took me four readings to pick this up - you can call me slow, I can take it ), we know that it's really Crouch Jr., Voldemort's supporter and Harry's enemy, so does this suggest that Fake!Moody also realizes that Voldemort made an error in using Harry's blood? If so, how can it be that Fake!Moody and Dumbledore both realize this but it doesn't occur to Voldemort? Or maybe I'm reading too much into this, and it's just Fake!Moody's way of continuing his Moody imitation. But it's only seconds later that Fake!Moody reveals to Harry that he's the Death Eater at Hogwarts. Both Moody's hiss and Dumbledore's gleam come after Harry shows them where he has been cut (Dumbledore specifically asks Harry to "stretch out his arm" (p. 696). I wonder if this means the location of the cut is significant? Any thoughts would be most welcome! Cheers, Phyllis From jbryson at richmond.infi.net Sun Aug 11 20:13:18 2002 From: jbryson at richmond.infi.net (tex23236) Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2002 20:13:18 -0000 Subject: What is Magic? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42482 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "digitopolis_2000" wrote: > > Now it is very doubtful that JKR will have someone go off on a spiel > about what magic is, since, in Potterverse, magic simply *is*. This is really how science-fiction starships go faster than light. They just do. Hogwarts teaches "theory of magic," although JKR doesn't pass it to the reader. > Magic isn't physical ? it's not made up > of atoms ? which leads me to believe that magic might be some sort of > radiation. > 1. Radiation is physical (waves and/or particles) > 1. Muggles can't detect it using any instrument. Detection would rely > on interaction between the radiation and something else, but that > doesn't happen for muggles. So magic isn't radiation. > 2. Magic interferes with electronic equipment which uses/gives off > radiation in the EM spectrum. > The interferance might be at the quantum level, which would apear to muggles to be a randomizing effect. > Now we have three ideas: (don't want to call them options, as they > might be interrelated.) > 1. There is another spectrum parallel to the EM spectrum that deals > with magic. Or an effect on EM whithout being a spectrum. > 2. Magic is a fundamental force or the manipulation of the > fundamental forces. There are four ? weak nuclear, strong nuclear, > gravitational and electromagnetic. Okay... > 3. Two words: Quantum physics. > Probably. > People talk about the `magical-ness' of places/people, for example > Hogsmeade is a totally magical village. Pictures of Earth from space > show bright spots of light coming from large cities during the night. > This is how I `see' the magic of a place ? as radiating from it. Okay, thus electronics messes up in the vacinity of Hogwarts. > Magic interacts with waves in the EM spectrum, for example the > invisibility cloak. Light waves seem to pass straight through ? like > glass. And like glass, the person/thing under the cloak remains > solid. However transparency is a property inherent in glass due to > crystal structure, I believe. I don't think that the cloak can give > properties like that, so it must mean that it somehow interacts with > the light rays, bending them in some manner so that it appears that > we can see straight through. The cloak isn't consistant. If the light waves all pass through or around the cloak, Then none would enter the eye of the wearer; thus the wearer would be in the dark. Also, Ron wouldn't be able to navigate the Flying car. > > "In the scene where Harry and Hermione use the time-turner to rescue > Buckbeak why didn't they replay the scene as many times as they > needed to get it right? They got it right on the first loop > > "To expand on the second of these points, the theory goes that, using > the time-turner, people can only change the course of time if the > outcome is uncertain or, "exists in a state of `Quantum Ambiguity' > where it can go one way or the other". The rescue of Buckbeak was > possible only because Harry and Hermione had not witnessed his death; > they heard the axe fall, but they did not see him beheaded. Once > they had rescued him, the ambiguity of the situation was resolved. > H&H didn't in fact change anything; they caused it to turn out the way it did. > > "Could this be related to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, which > holds that one cannot measure both the momentum and location of an > electron with any accuracy at the same time? Probably a good explanation > > Currently, lots of physicists are experimenting with quantum effects > (for lack of the real term). They say that they've managed to bring > particles to an `entangled' state. Extrapolating, they say that it > could be key to creating teleportation devices (a la Star Trek). > Apparation immediately come to mind ? disappear from one place, > reappear almost instantly in another. This is basically what happens > in Star Trek, basically what the scientists say they may eventually > be able to do years from now ? and wizards do it all the time! The trick is to make the jump from particles to human-scale objects. > One really bizarre part of quantum effect is that the observer is part of the effect. This makes me want to look at Harry's Divination exam in PA, when he looks into the crystal ball. Trelawney expects him to see a beheaded Buckbeak twitching on the ground. Instead, he SAYS he sees Buckbeak escaping and flying away. JKR doesn't tell us what he really saw. But if Harry REALLY saw Buckbeak escaping in the ball. This may be what ultimately caused the success of the time turner. Quantum Physics is that wierd. Tex From jbryson at richmond.infi.net Sun Aug 11 20:23:06 2002 From: jbryson at richmond.infi.net (tex23236) Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2002 20:23:06 -0000 Subject: Location of the cut Was: Fake!Moody's "Long, Low Hiss" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42483 > Both Moody's hiss and Dumbledore's gleam come after Harry shows them > where he has been cut (Dumbledore specifically asks Harry to "stretch > out his arm" (p. 696). I wonder if this means the location of the > cut is significant? It was taken from the left arm, right? Then that would be at about the location of the Dark Mark on a DE's arm... Hmmm... Tex From jkusalavagemd at yahoo.com Sun Aug 11 20:34:27 2002 From: jkusalavagemd at yahoo.com (jkusalavagemd) Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2002 20:34:27 -0000 Subject: The Gryffindor Coat-of-Arms In-Reply-To: <005f01c240eb$56d9c600$f07e63d1@texas.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42484 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Amanda Geist" wrote: > Haggridd said The > > Gryffindor coat-of-arms is the reverse of Scotland's, much as the > > "Red Cross" is the reverse of the Swiss flag, and for the same > > reason: to give honor by imitating. > > From the author's perspective, I think JKR may well have done this on > purpose. Although the lion is the noblest of heraldic beasts, the griffin is > right up there too for good connotations, it would have been a perfectly > good (and more logical) charge for Gryffindor (given the obvious cant). Precisely! The lion must have been chosen for another purpose. > However, England is rather lion-heavy, too--lions are *the* top-of- the-line > charge, and I doubt that Scotland's having a lion is anything besides one > thing on a long list of reasons she had. > Ah, but England's arms have three lions which are passant regardant. The Gryffindor arms are reversed spatially as well as tincturally. > > ANYway, the point being, Gryffindor's lion may well have been established > before Scotland's was. How far back does the usage of the red lion > go?Scotland may be the one extending the honor. The differences are > small--Gryffindor's lion faces sinister, Scotland's faces dexter; the colors > have been flipped, and Scotland has the tressure. > Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the usual way for these heraldic charges to face "dexter", to the right? Having the Gryffindor lion face left is another signal that something unusual is happening here. > > I have to think that this was > > done consciously by JKR. > > I agree and I don't. I think much thought went into what she does, very, > very, very much, but I also think part of her genius is that she manages to > get these details *right* on a very subliminal level. I don't think she had > any idea of all the resonances of the names she's chosen (although she > clearly knew some), and look how applicable and correct the stuff that we > find turns out to be. So I'm sure that the connection was there, but > possibly not consciously, possibly just a factor in how the colors and > animal "fit." She does that "fit" thing so very well. > Well, it may have been subliminal. I would like to think otherwise. > > Well, that's all. I hope nobody thinks this is too trivial an > observation. > > Heraldry is never trivial. > > --Amanda Amen! Haggridd From rvotaw at i-55.com Sun Aug 11 21:05:55 2002 From: rvotaw at i-55.com (Richelle Votaw) Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2002 16:05:55 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The "Missing 24-hours" - another theory References: Message-ID: <009401c2417a$e2f640c0$649ecdd1@istu757> No: HPFGUIDX 42485 >> Richelle wrote: >> > > How does she know that Harry Potter would've been alone? Is it >> common knowledge that Harry was living with his muggle aunt and uncle who >> would have no interest in bringing him to the platform? Rosie writes: > Apart from the fact that he has no parents, on page 75 (UK), Ron says > to Harry: "I Heard you went to live with muggles. What are they like?" > > So either everyone in the WW knows about it, or Molly probably > already knew and told her kids. I assume that it's common knowledge that Harry went to live with muggles. But the particular type of muggles is what I'm refering to. I know I would never drop off an 11 year old child at a train station without seeing him safely aboard. Even if Muggles can't get through the barrier, they could at least see him through. I mean plenty of wizards and witches live with muggles. Dean was raised in an orphanage, Hermione's parents are muggles. Does that mean they just drop them off at the train station without even walking them to the gate? Or at least to the barrier? Eloise writes: > In addition, the 15 month old is going to be much more distressed by the > situation. A small baby will accept care from anyone. By 15 months, he's > going to want his mum. > The thought of taking a 15 month old child on a flying motorbike is > distinctly frightening. I agree. I've kept lots of babies, and I'd much rather keep a small infant that didn't know me than a 15 month old who didn't know me. A 15 month old (particularly a distressed 15 month old) is not easily comforted. I would think that in Harry's situation (parents dead, mum murdered in front of him, big bad guy in robe pointing wand at him, bright light, house falling down, all in a matter of minutes) it would take an experienced caregiver to calm him. With a 15 month old it's not simply a matter of crying himself to sleep. A traumatized 15 month old could easily make himself physically ill in such a situation (and in situations far less traumatic for that matter). Someone with ample experience in caring for babies would be able to calm him much better than, say, a half-giant. Also, come to think of it, Mrs. Weasley did have several small children at home. Baby Ginny, Ron, who must've been about 19 months, a couple of 3 year olds and so on. There would definitely have been someone to get Harry's mind off his problems there. However, would the other kids remember him? Simple memory charm would work, I guess, but still, let me see. The twins probably not at 3 they're a bit too young. Percy would've been 5, so it's possible. But he doesn't spend a lot of time with our Harry anyway to tell him about it. He hasn't been around Bill and Charlie much either. Well, now I'm rambling, so I'll shut up. Richelle From rvotaw at i-55.com Sun Aug 11 21:14:17 2002 From: rvotaw at i-55.com (Richelle Votaw) Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2002 16:14:17 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Draco Malfoy References: Message-ID: <00ad01c2417c$0ddc80a0$649ecdd1@istu757> No: HPFGUIDX 42486 Jen writes: > The possible character interpretations are kind of neat if one thinks of > the vol part as being related to Latin volo, velle -- does Voldemort > deep down crave death? is that why he couldn't kill baby Harry? --, but Actually I'm thinking it (wish for death) could come into play when Voldemort meets his end. Either the way he dies will be so horrific he will wish for death, or he will be robbed of magical powers, which to Voldemort would be worse than death, therefore he would wish for death. > I was rather wondering how you got 'wicked disgrace' as a meaning for > 'Malfoy'. What root are you thinking of for 'disgrace'? I can't think > of anything besides 'flagitium', and that's hardly likely to be a source > for the 'foy' It's the latin verb "foedo" that means disgrace,defile, or disfigure. And since the "oe" dipthong is pronounced "oy" as in boy it does have the same sound as the -foy in Malfoy. Richelle From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Sun Aug 11 21:25:18 2002 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (bboy_mn) Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2002 21:25:18 -0000 Subject: Slightly OT: Thoughts on Apparation Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42487 The subject of Apparation has come up in the form of 'why didn't Lily just grab Harry and apparate out of the house at Godric's Hollow?'. General thoughts on Apparation- You can apparate with anything you possess with exceptions. If you are sitting in a chair and you apparate, the chair doesn't come with you because while it is in contact, it is not in your possession. But if you are holding a chair, lifting it off the floor, and apparate, the chair does come with you because it is in your possession just like your clothes and your satchel, bookbag, or purse. The exception would seem to be, possession of another person or possible another living being. Could Hermione apparate with Crookshanks if she was holding him/her when she apparated? If apparation while holding another person was possible, I think we would have seen it by now or at least heard some reference to it. It may be that you can't do it with some one underage because ...well... they are underage. Also, we know that apparation is dangerous, and in general, we know that magic is controlled by intent. So, if you tried to apparate with someone, especially a very young child, who's intent did not match yours; the results could be disasterous. Your babies butt could end up in Bristol while you end up in London. Nasty bit of business sorting that out. Apparation and Stress- Apparation is difficult and I suspect that it needs a clear head and a fair amount of concentration. This could be the reason people don't apparate out of dangerous situations. I'm sure sometimes they do, but it seems a little too easy, and doesn't seem to happen very often. So, I'm guessing it takes a pretty clear head to safely apparate. Apparation Etiquette- When you apparate to someone's house even a relatively close friend, I would assume that it is not proper etiquette to just pop up in thier living room. You never know, they may be engage in intimate activity which is not a good time to have the neighbors pop in. So, in my fan fictional world, the rule is that you never apparate directly into or OUT OF anyone's personal living space. If you visit the Weasley's, you apparate outside their door and knock like any civilized person would. When you leave, unless they are extremely good friends, you say goodbye, step outside the door and apparate from their. Honor Among Thieves- How is anything safe from theft in the magic world? You could just pop into the local jewlery store, fill your pockets, and pop out. Stores and shops may have some enchantments, but I would assume that during business hours, legitimate customers would pop in and out all the time. As far as peoples homes, it would seem very easy to rob them. They may have antiapparation enchantments, but that would also stop you from apparating into and out of your own home. In England, more than many placed, there really is honor among thieves, and other criminal sorts. Up until recently, English police didn't even carry guns. It was a gentleman agreement between cops and crooks. 'You don't shoot us and we won't shoot you.' I believe the world has changed a bit now, but I'm still pretty sure that the average 'walk the street' cop doesn't carry a gun (can't prove it though). Apparation and the Moon- I read some where that one of the difficulties in apparation is that you have to take into account the phases of the moon. In a sense, when you apparate, the moon can affect your destination, just as it affect the tides. If you don't make proper allowances for the moon's affect, you aren't going to end up where you intended. CAN ANYONE SUPPORT THE MOON/APPARATION THEORY WITH CANNON? Just some random thoughts on Apparation. bboy_mn From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Sun Aug 11 21:52:35 2002 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (bboy_mn) Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2002 21:52:35 -0000 Subject: The "Missing 24-hours" - another theory In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42488 . Scroll Down for Message . . . . . . . scroll down for message . . . . . . . --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "bluesqueak" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "bboy_mn" wrote: > BBOY_MN orgininally said: > If he did go to his hut at Hogwarts, it seems like everyone was > too busy to stop by and see the baby as I'm sure they would have > done if they knew Harry was there. > > Maybe Hagrid was back at his hut and just kept Harry's presents > secret. > > Anyway, I'm not buying another grand conspiracy theory. It seems > more than reasonable that Hagrid could take care of Harry for a > day. > Just took Harry back to his hut, took care of him for a day, got > on Sirius motorcycle, flew south along the western coast of Scotland, > flew just south of Britol and turned east to Surry and Privet Drive. > > That's my story and I'm sticking to it. > > bboy_Mn > PIP REPLIED: > GEOGRAPHY CHECK FOR NON-UK RESIDENTS > Bristol is quite a LONG way west of Surrey (by British standards - we > think 100 miles is a long way). The standard west coast air route > from Scotland to London (just flown it recently) is to fly over the > coast of Lancashire, then go into the English Midlands, flying fairly > directly from Birmingham to London/Surrey. > > The reason for this is that it misses all the big, hairy mountains > that I certainly wouldn't like to try and fly over in a motorbike. > [grin] > > If you fly over Bristol when travelling from Scotland to London, you > are LOST. It's much more likely that Hagrid was either flying from > Wales, or from the West Country (Devon, Cornwall), both of which > would have him conceivably deciding to go over Bristol so he could > then follow the lights on the muggle motorways up to Surrey. > > If he apparated back to his hut, we get stuck with the problem of 'if > Hagrid can apparate with a baby, why couldn't Lily apparate away from > Voldemort with Harry?' > > Pip If you fly striaght south from Glasgow, you fly about a third of the way over ocean, and another third over Wales which leave you out of Scotland and England for most of the trip. Not a logical route unless you are trying to say out of site. Especially, if you are trying to stay out of site of other witches and wizards. We know Hagrid flew over Bristol. If we assume he was at Hogwarts, then straight south to Bristol and turn left to Surrey is a safe, secure, and under the circumstances logical route. Although, not necessarily logical under other circumstances. You are right, it is about 150Km or 100miles from Bristol to London. The alternative theory is that Hagrid sought refuge in Wales some where. There is speculation that since he flew over Bristol to get to Surrey, that he stayed in or near Godric's Hollow which because of the route over Bristol, is assumed by some to be in Wales. If we are trying to come up with a logical description of events that take Harry and Hagrid from Hogwarts to Surrey by way of Bristol, then my safe secure 'out of site' route theory is reasonable. You also asked about apparation; Harry and Hagrid apparating back to Hogwarts seemed to be the implication. Why would they apparate when they had Sirius flying motorcycle? Although admittedly at 60 mph that's about a 5 hour flight. (Approx 350 miles from Cardiff to Glasgow) So as long as Bristol is in the picture, the only logical conclusions seem be, he stayed in or near Godric's Hollow which assumes Godric's Hollow is in Wales, or he flew from Hogwart via a safe secure route. bboy_mn From pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk Sun Aug 11 22:07:02 2002 From: pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk (bluesqueak) Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2002 22:07:02 -0000 Subject: What is Magic? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42489 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "digitopolis_2000" wrote: > > I like to think that magic is woven into the fabric of space-time. > Oftentimes, I think this too about good and evil (on other days, > the idea is balderdash). In ancient times, people believed that the > world was made up of elements: fire, wind, water, earth (eventually > `ether' (space) joined this group). I'd like to add magic to this list. > > These are conceptual elements, unlike the physical elements of the > Periodic Table that we use. Magic isn't physical ? it's not made up > of atoms ? which leads me to believe that magic might be some sort > of radiation. > Radiation is physical. It's made up of particles, or sometimes waves, or possibly wavicles, depending on what it happens to feel like at the time [I'm serious!]. Light, for example, comes in measurable packets called photons - the fact that they are discrete and measurable is where the 'quantum' comes from in quantum physics. > What we have is the electromagnetic spectrum, including light, > infrared, ultraviolet light, radio waves, microwaves, X-rays etc. > which are of different wavelengths. However, I have reason to > believe that magic simply isn't an extension of the EM spectrum: > 1. Muggles can't detect it using any instrument. Detection would > rely on interaction between the radiation and something else, but > that doesn't happen for muggles. > 2. Magic interferes with electronic equipment which uses/gives off > radiation in the EM spectrum. The above two statements contradict each other. If magic interferes with electronic equipment (which it does; that's canon) then it can be detected by muggles by that interference. So magic certainly *interacts* with the electro-magnetic spectrum. Currently muggles DON'T detect magic, but that's simply because the MOM is putting a lot of effort into making sure us muggles don't realise magic is there. > > Now we have three ideas: (don't want to call them options, as they > might be interrelated.) > 1. There is another spectrum parallel to the EM spectrum that deals > with magic. > 2. Magic is a fundamental force or the manipulation of the > fundamental forces. There are four ? weak nuclear, strong nuclear, > gravitational and electromagnetic. > 3. Two words: Quantum physics. > > > Magic interacts with waves in the EM spectrum, for example the > invisibility cloak. Light waves seem to pass straight through ? > like glass. And like glass, the person/thing under the cloak > remains solid. However transparency is a property inherent in glass > due to crystal structure, I believe. I don't think that the cloak > can give properties like that, so it must mean that it somehow > interacts with the light rays, bending them in some manner so that > it appears that we can see straight through. Alternatively the cloak is a device which *detects* the reflected light rays hitting it from the objects outside it and *replicates* their patterns on its surface. Rather like a TV replicates a pattern of electrons according to a received signal. This would allow the light rays to continue on through the cloak, so Harry, et al, can see. > > This bending of light reminds me so much of space, where large bodies > warp space-time due to gravity. This was Einstein's idea and was > proven during an eclipse when a star that was supposed to be behind > the sun, was seen next to it. The light from the star (radiation) > travels a straight path, but when the path is bent, the path of the > light is curved, and the position of the star appears changed. > > The reason I bring this up is that this relates to one of the > fundamental forces ? gravity. Therefore, we could assume that magic > is the manipulation of the forces. By influencing the forces we can > control matter ? it's possible then that this is the underlying > principle of magic. I think there's a joke somewhere, possibly in canon (the schoolbooks?) that Einstein was a wizard whose job was to *confuse* us muggles. But all historical magic was about manipulating the forces that control the universe - which is also a pretty good description of engineering; the two are closely related. > > And now we move on to Quantum Physics (which I don't know much > about/can't understand very well). In the Lexicon FAQ I came across > this (which I shall quote here since I don't think I can explain it > any better), which got me started on the idea of quantum physics at > work. It's about the Time Turner: > > "In the scene where Harry and Hermione use the time-turner to > rescue Buckbeak why didn't they replay the scene as many times as > they needed to get it right? At first, this thought seems a > reasonable question, but there are two factors that count against > such an action. Firstly, there would be high chance that the pair > would encounter an earlier Harry and Hermione, and, secondly, they w > ould not be able to make further attempts if they had observed any > sort of outcome. I think we're getting confused here; Hermione obviously has been told that it *is* possible to change the past, and that the consequences are terrible. She also obviously *thinks* that rescuing Buckbeak is changing time, because she believes he's been executed. If it's as easy as Hermione seems to think, why were the MoM EVER prepared to give a Time Turner to a teenager? I suspect McGonagall has warned Hermione of the horrid consequences so she doesn't TRY changing the past, but that it takes a really powerful wizard to actually do it. This would be in keeping with the current physics of time travel - forward time travel into the future is no problem [in the sense that we know the theory, we just haven't worked out the engineering yet] - it simply requires someone to speed up to near the speed of light. Travelling backwards into the past is the major problem, since it requires you to travel faster than light. I certainly don't understand the maths, but someone *has* calculated the energy required to change events, and it's basically like the effort required to lift yourself off the ground by pulling on your own bootstraps. Of course, Harry might well be capable of changing the past - perhaps Hermione's so scared in PoA because she's instinctively realised that Harry DOES have the raw power to change events. > > "To expand on the second of these points, the theory goes that, > using the time-turner, people can only change the course of time if > the outcome is uncertain or, "exists in a state of `Quantum > Ambiguity' where it can go one way or the other". The rescue of > Buckbeak was possible only because Harry and Hermione had not > witnessed his death; they heard the axe fall, but they did not see > him beheaded. Once they had rescued him, the ambiguity of the situation was resolved. I would argue that there was *NO* ambiguity in events, simply that Hermione and Harry did not have the information necessary to interpret events correctly the first time. Poor old Schrodinger actually argued that his cat thought experiment was a load of rubbish, and far from being in an indeterminate state, the cat was either definitely alive or definitely dead - we just can't *observe* it until we open the box. Hermione and Harry rescued Buckbeak because they already HAD rescued Buckbeak. If they hadn't, they certainly wouldn't have heard 'the unmistakeable swish and thud of an axe', because cutting off something's head with one blow of an axe is a) difficult, as Nearly Headless Nick can testify and b)tends to result in a swish, thud of axe, and *second* thud as the detached head hits the ground. Or even more horribly; a swish, a crunchy squelchy sound, and then a thud. The problem with Hermione's and Harry's free will implying that they have the ability to change things only appears because we insist on looking at things as if TT Hermione and TT Harry were not present the first time round, and that pre TT Hermione and pre-TT Harry are not interacting with their later selves [oh, English just doesn't have the tenses for time travel]. In fact, the ENTIRE sequence of events only happens because of the decisions both Harry's and Hermione's make. If they'd made a different set of decisions, it would be a different sequence of events. For example, if TT Harry had rushed into Hagrid's hut to try and capture Pettigrew, and had succeeded, he might have been captured by Sirius (who wanted Pettigrew), and it might have been pre-TT Harry who needed to rescue his later self instead of the other way round. [I think I'm getting a headache] > > "Could this be related to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, > which holds that one cannot measure both the momentum and location > of an electron with any accuracy at the same time? In other words, > if an action (momentum) is resolved in one place (location), it > becomes impossible to return to that place to achieve an > alternative outcome. Not quite. Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle states that you can't measure an electron's location and velocity simultaneously because measuring velocity requires measuring *change* in location over time, and measuring location requires that you consider the electron as if it wasn't moving. [Very roughly]. However, it also states that at the sub-atomic level, whatever you use to measure the electron's velocity/location is quite likely to affect the electron. Light for example, has energy, and at the sub atomic level the beam of light you use to try and 'see' the electron is quite capable of knocking the wretched thing out of the location you were trying to measure. [It is now possible to make some very pretty pictures by controlling the way microscopes can move individual atoms around] So Heisenberg's Uncertainty principle would apply not because you can't go back in time to measure the location of the electron after you've measured velocity, but BECAUSE TT Harry and TT Hermione are the observers, whose observations are affecting the observed (pre TT Harry and Hermione). Hermione and Harry can't observe an 'original' course of events - a pristine state where they didn't go back into the past; because in going back into the past they affect the past they're observing (most obviously by Harry rescuing himself, but as Valerie says in the paragraph below, they also affect the past in many subtle ways). > "In relation to, PoA there are many subtle clues to events caused > by the time-turner. For example, when Harry, Ron and Hermione > enter the entrance hall under the Invisibility Cloak, they hear > departing footsteps and a door slamming and proceed to Hagrid's hut > to comfort him over the death of Buckbeak. Later, after using the > time-turner, Harry and Hermione appear in the entrance hall and > hide in a broom cupboard, where Hermione hears herself, Ron and > Harry outside, under the cloak, on their way to Hagrid's." > End of the Time Turner Section. > Currently, lots of physicists are experimenting with quantum effects > (for lack of the real term). They say that they've managed to bring > particles to an `entangled' state. Extrapolating, they say that it > could be key to creating teleportation devices (a la Star Trek). > Apparation immediately come to mind ? disappear from one place, > reappear almost instantly in another. This is basically what > happens in Star Trek, basically what the scientists say they may > eventually be able to do years from now ? and wizards do it all the time! > I think in many ways Wizards have a much more accurate view of the Universe, and how to manipulate it than muggles do. But they don't seem to see as far as muggles do - more interested in practice than theory (though this may be an illusion created by Harry being in the very early stages of his schooling). > Looking forward to hearing your thoughts, > > Valerie Parker Pip! Squeak. [Arrgh! My brain hurts] From mikezitz at charter.net Sun Aug 11 21:56:05 2002 From: mikezitz at charter.net (interstate999) Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2002 21:56:05 -0000 Subject: Crackpot Old Fool Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42490 In book one, page 59, Vernon tell Hagrid "I am not paying for some crackpot old fool to teach him magic tricks". Harry was dropped off at the Dursley's at night and did not speak to Dumbledore. How did vernon know Dumbledore was old? Mike Z From michelleapostolides at yahoo.co.uk Sun Aug 11 22:56:46 2002 From: michelleapostolides at yahoo.co.uk (Michelle Apostolides) Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2002 23:56:46 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Crackpot Old Fool References: Message-ID: <001901c2418a$5f307a20$279f01d4@john> No: HPFGUIDX 42491 Mike Z said : How did vernon know Dumbledore was old? He didn't probably. But it's a saying, Crackpot old fool. At least, that's how I took it........ I don't think Vernon knew much more about Dumbledore than Pentunia told him. Michelle [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk Sun Aug 11 23:03:06 2002 From: pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk (bluesqueak) Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2002 23:03:06 -0000 Subject: The "Missing 24-hours" - another theory In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42492 > > > BBOY_MN orgininally said: > > > If he did go to his hut at Hogwarts, ... > > Just took Harry back to his hut, took care of him for a day, got > > on Sirius motorcycle, flew south along the western coast of > >Scotland, flew just south of Britol and turned east to Surry and > > Privet Drive. > > That's my story and I'm sticking to it. > > > > bboy_Mn > > > > PIP REPLIED: > > GEOGRAPHY CHECK FOR NON-UK RESIDENTS > > Bristol is quite a LONG way west of Surrey (by British standards - > > we think 100 miles is a long way). The standard west coast air > > route from Scotland to London (just flown it recently) is to fly > > over the coast of Lancashire, then go into the English Midlands, > > flying fairly directly from Birmingham to London/Surrey. > > > > The reason for this is that it misses all the big, hairy > > mountains that I certainly wouldn't like to try and fly over in > > a motorbike. [grin] > > > > If you fly over Bristol when travelling from Scotland to London, > > you are LOST. It's much more likely that Hagrid was either flying > > from Wales, or from the West Country (Devon, Cornwall), both of > > which would have him conceivably deciding to go over Bristol so > > he could then follow the lights on the muggle motorways up to > > Surrey. > > If he apparated back to his hut, we get stuck with the problem > > of 'if Hagrid can apparate with a baby, why couldn't Lily > > apparate away from Voldemort with Harry?' > > > > Pip > BBoy replies: > If you fly striaght south from Glasgow, you fly about a third of the > way over ocean, and another third over Wales which leave you out of > Scotland and England for most of the trip. Not a logical route > unless you are trying to say out of site. Especially, if you are > trying to stay out of site of other witches and wizards. Pip replies: I hate the idea of flying over the ocean in a motorbike even more than I hate the idea of flying over the Welsh mountains - it's flippin' dangerous, especially with a passenger who's a fifteen month old baby. Even the commercial jets try and reduce their ocean flying to the minimum possible - there's nowhere to land except some very wet sea if things go wrong. How low flying is this motorbike? Does he dodge the RAF jets ?(the Welsh Brecon Beacons are a major training ground for 'zipping under the radar' flying practice). >BBoy: > We know Hagrid flew over Bristol. If we assume he was at Hogwarts, > then straight south to Bristol and turn left to Surrey is a safe, > secure, and under the circumstances logical route. Although, not > necessarily logical under other circumstances. Pip: I don't think he went back to Hogwarts. I think he hid out with Harry until nightfall, when he knew that muggles wouldn't notice a flying motorbike. Face it, all we'd see are the headlights (which muggle planes have) and the red taillights (which muggle planes have) and all we'd hear would be the engine noise ('is that a helicopter? Doesn't sound like a plane.') At night, we'd simply not notice it was a motorbike doing the flying. Going back to Hogwarts - unless 'Godric's Hollow' is in Scotland, and it sounds more like a name an English village would have - means Hagrid has to do a lot of dangerous nighttime flying. As you say, he has to do a 5 hour flight to Hogwarts, and then a 5 hour flight back, and if he's going to do it over the ocean at night then I *really* hope Sirius put some good Wizarding navigation spells on that motorbike. ;-) BBoy: > You are right, it is about 150Km or 100miles from Bristol to London. > > The alternative theory is that Hagrid sought refuge in Wales some > where. There is speculation that since he flew over Bristol to get > to Surrey, that he stayed in or near Godric's Hollow which because > of the route over Bristol, is assumed by some to be in Wales. > Pip: Hiding in Wales is much better. BBoy: > If we are trying to come up with a logical description of events > that take Harry and Hagrid from Hogwarts to Surrey by way of > Bristol, then my safe secure 'out of site' route theory is reasonable. Pip: I think it's one of those routes that looks great on a map - which is not your fault, because you're working from maps. BBoy: > You also asked about apparation; Harry and Hagrid apparating back to > Hogwarts seemed to be the implication. Why would they apparate when > they had Sirius flying motorcycle? Although admittedly at 60 mph > that's about a 5 hour flight. (Approx 350 miles from Cardiff to Glasgow) > Pip: Err... a 10 second apparation versus a five hour motorbike flight. Enough said. Though truthfully, I think apparation is impossible because you can't do it with a small child. BBoy: > So as long as Bristol is in the picture, the only logical > conclusions seem be, he stayed in or near Godric's Hollow which >assumes Godric's Hollow is in Wales, or he flew from Hogwart via a safe secure route. > Pip: If the 'safe, secure route' was over the ocean at night, followed by a quick trip over the RAF's training areas, remind me NEVER to accept a lift from Hagrid [grin] Pip From dragonettefish at yahoo.com Sun Aug 11 22:18:02 2002 From: dragonettefish at yahoo.com (dragonettefish) Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2002 22:18:02 -0000 Subject: Diagon Alley-Hermiones parents Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42493 In the Chamber of Secrets in the chapter "At Flourish and Blotts" Hermiones parents are with her in Diagon Alley. I was suprised at this because they are muggles and I thought Diagon Alley was only wizards. I suppose that couldn't be true because Hogsmeade is the only non-muggle community in Great Britian the book states but is Hogsmeade considered a community? I got off track there! Sorry! Anyways, I was wondering how Hermiones parents got to Diagon Alley. It says in the COS "They said good-bye to the Grangers, who were leaving the pub for the Muggle street on the other side..." How did they know the pub was there and how did they get into it because in the first book it clearly states that Muggles could not see the pub? I dont think you could go into something where all you could see is a brick wall and if you could accidently walk in it wouldnt there be lots of muggles doing just that? Thank you and I hope someone can answer me with this frustrating question! "dragonettefish" From bdmorrp at budget.state.ny.us Sun Aug 11 23:06:57 2002 From: bdmorrp at budget.state.ny.us (erisedstraeh2002) Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2002 23:06:57 -0000 Subject: Location of the cut Was: Fake!Moody's "Long, Low Hiss" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42494 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "tex23236" wrote: Phyllis (me) wrote: > Both Moody's hiss and Dumbledore's gleam come after Harry shows > them where he has been cut (Dumbledore specifically asks Harry > to "stretch out his arm" (p. 696). I wonder if this means the > location of the cut is significant? Tex responded: > It was taken from the left arm, right? Then that would be at about > the location of the Dark Mark on a DE's arm... Hmmm... now me: I was hoping you were on to something, but then I checked GoF and on p. 642 (Scholastic hardcover ed.) it says that when Wormtail approached Harry with the dagger, Harry "felt its point penetrate the crook of his *right* arm..." I was also thinking that, since Fake!Moody had to ask Harry what Voldemort "took" from him, this indicates that Voldemort didn't tell Fake!Moody what he planned to do with Harry once the Triwizard Cup transported Harry to him, even though Voldemort consistently refers to Fake!Moody as his "faithful" servant. Wormtail, on the other hand, appears to be in the know as to what is going to happen (in the first chapter of GoF, Wormtail says "It could be done without Harry Potter, My Lord"), but Voldemort refers to him as "worthless and traitorous." More food for thought... Phyllis From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Sun Aug 11 23:39:16 2002 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (bboy_mn) Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2002 23:39:16 -0000 Subject: Slightly OT: Re: What is Magic? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42495 General comment to Valerie Parker about Magic in the real world. - - - - - - Special note: There is some guy on the Internet who haunts these forum who goes nuts every time I post this information. It's obvious that he is the only person who doesn't 'get it'. . . . . . . . In our true real universe are Dark Forces and Dark Matter that comprise the bulk of this true universe. Our, as common people, perceived view of the physical universe it very tiny. Scientist calculate that our common view of physical reality falls far far far short of the true physical reality. The bulk of the physical universe is made up of Dark Matter; dark meaning unseen. The forces that we as mere muggles perceive is minute compare to the full force of the universe. The massive bulk of the forces that make up the universe are Dark Forces; again 'dark' meaning unseen. So we have an genuine unseen physical world beyond our general ability to observe or comprehend. There is 'another' physical reality out there. And, we have a genuine unseen force beyond our general ability to observe or comprehend, There is 'another' force in reality out there. So we have a massive unseen physical reality which could account for places like Diagon Alley which is certainly a physical reality beyond our normal perceive physical reality. And, we have magical forces that are force beyond our normal comprehension of forces and infinitely more powerful that our comprehension of normal forces. Who is to say that this Dark/Unseen world that dwarfs our perceived world, is not the magic world. There exists a magic physical reality beyond our normal reality. There exists a genuine massively large Dark/Unseen pysical reality beyond out normal reality. Is it that hard to see a connection? There is a magic force beyond our normal reality. There is a genuine infinitely powerful Dark/Unseen force beyond our normal reality. Again, am I the only one who can see a possible connection? Below is a copy of my brief article on this. Please resist any psychotic attempt to tell me my comprehension of science sucks, even if it does. We are dealing with applying possible physical reality to the FICTIONAL world of MAGIC. I think we can skip any psychotic science lectures. Although, all non-psychotic discussions are welcome. My apologies if I have posted this before. = = = = = = = = = = = = Recently in an unrelated discussion, the point was made that even the wildest fantasy fiction has to have some roots in reality to be believable. So like all good fiction writes (well OK, maybe not that good) I'm trying to find genuine reality that could justify the fictional reality I create. A recent magazine article proved TO ME that Magic Space and Magic Forces do exist. Remember, what follows is about fiction, not about technical science. - - - - - - - - - - - - Can there be Magic? -Can there be Magic space like Diagon Alley? -Can there be Magic itself; magic forces or energy? Recently while traveling to Los Angeles, I bought a 'Discovery' magazine that unlocked the answers to the above questions, and the answer to all of them is YES. (In my opinion.) The Physical World- Did you know that, according to science's best calculations, that the physical world as we know it, every spark of energy, every atom, every rock, tree, grain of sand, every galaxy, every star, planet, and speck of space dust, only represents about 4% of the universe. I'm not saying OUR star or OUR planet, I'm saying that the accumulation of everything that we perceive as the physical universe is only about 4% of the true universe. 96% of all that exists is in a dimension or form that is beyond our ability to full detect or comprehend. The rest of the unseen universe is made up of 'dark matter' and 'dark energy'. In a way, it is a shame they named it 'dark' matter. That makes it sound like they are saying evil matter, but in this case 'dark' simply means unseen. Dark Matter/Dark Energy- By matter, we mean anything with substance, anything we perceive to be solid, tangible, and real. So, if there can be a real tangible world of matter and substance that is unseen by us mere muggles, that would seem to be the magic world; the world of unseen/dark matter. A world of a magnitude beyond the greatest muggles comprehension. That would seem to explain the existence of Diagon Alley. If we combine all the ordinary matter and all the unseen/dark matter, we can still only account for 1/3 of the universe. That leaves the remaining 2/3's as unseen/dark energy. If our perception of the spectrum and intensity of muggle energy is as great as it is, imagine how powerful the energy that makes up the other 2/3's of the universe must be. It must be an energy and force capable of things beyond the mere muggle's wildest dreams. There is also a residual 'static' of unseen/dark energy and matter. Periodically, for micro units of time, bits and pieces of the unseen world pop into our world, and these crossovers are detectable as this unseen/dark static. (Notice that I did NOT say Quantum noise.) So if the boundary between the seen and unseen, the muggle and magic world, is being crossed by this random static, then surely any one who has a command of the unseen/dark forces that make up 96% of the universe, can cross that boundary at will. So there you have it, the existence of matter, of material substance, capable of comprising the physical magic world, and the existence of forces capable of doing things that are beyond a muggle's ability to even imagine, capable of doing magical things. We mere mortals, we mere muggles are so arrogant as to believe that our reality is the total reality. That we are the center of the universe and all things are defined by our existence. Well, my mere mortals, my mere muggles, our reality is no more than a footnote, in the true reality of the universe. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - This is not an essay on science; it's a an exercise in trying to reconcile fictional reality with non-fictional reality. Spare me the lecture on the accuracy of the science as I've presented it here. Please, try to keep this in perspective. We are talking about FICTION here. bboy_mn From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Mon Aug 12 00:02:15 2002 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (bboy_mn) Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 00:02:15 -0000 Subject: Diagon Alley-Hermiones parents In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42496 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "dragonettefish" wrote: > In the Chamber of Secrets in the chapter "At Flourish and Blotts" > Hermiones parents are with her in Diagon Alley. I was suprised at > this because they are muggles and I thought Diagon Alley was only > wizards. I suppose that couldn't be true because Hogsmeade is the > only non-muggle community in Great Britian the book states but is > Hogsmeade considered a community? I got off track there! Sorry! > Anyways, I was wondering how Hermiones parents got to Diagon Alley. > It says in the COS "They said good-bye to the Grangers, who were > leaving the pub for the Muggle street on the other side..." How did > they know the pub was there and how did they get into it because in > the first book it clearly states that Muggles could not see the pub? > I dont think you could go into something where all you could see is a > brick wall and if you could accidently walk in it wouldnt there be > lots of muggles doing just that? Thank you and I hope someone can > answer me with this frustrating question! > > "dragonettefish" bboy_mn Responds: This may not answer you question 100% but I think it addresses it pretty well. This is cut and pasted from another post. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/42440 = = = = = = = = >> Rosie continues:<< On a related-sort-of note, you know where Mr Weasley (I think) describes the security around the QWC in GOF, and says "there are some places Muggles can't penetrate", making reference to Diagon Alley... what does he mean by this? He clearly can't mean they physically cannot enter at all, as Mr & Mrs Weasley do. They can't enter without the help from a witch or wizard, perhaps? Ideas? --- bboy_mn responds: --- Muggles can't 'penetrate' the cash vault at your local bank, but that doesn't mean they can't get in. Diagon Alley exists in an alternate physical reality. To my knowledge there are only two/three ways to get into Diagon Alley. 1.) to find a pub that can't be seen by muggles (Leaky Cauldron) and somehow get inside it, and somehow get past Tom the proprietor, somehow get into the back courtyard, somehow know which bricks to tap, and somehow have enough magic that tapping those bricks opens the archway to Diagon Alley. 2./3.) apparate/portkey into that magical physical space. I think it's safe to say that getting into the cash vault at your local bank would be easier. Hermione, being a witch, brings here parents into Diagon Alley, because she can see the Leaky Cauldron and knows how to open the archway. Muggles aren't forbidden from being there, but the odds of any muggles getting there without the direct help of a magic person is almost impossible, so in that sense, muggles can't 'penetrate' the 'security' of Diagon Alley. Note that even the magical Knight Bus stopped in the muggle street out in front of the Leaky Cauldron. Now the Quidditch World Cup took place in a Scottish moor which was a camp ground owned and run by a muggle which while it took extreme and unusual precaution to hide from the muggles, still existed in muggle space. Hogwarts and Hogsmead (and the Leaky Cauldron) exist in normal, or mostly or partly in normal muggle physical reality/space but are protected by various enchantments to keep muggles away. Personally, I believe that Hogwarts and Hogsmead exist in both muggle physical reality/space and magical physical reality/space; sort of on the edge, existing in both places. So those places have a 'gateway' into them that allows you to enter from muggle space. While you can get into Hogwarts and Hogsmead by walking in from muggle space, you can't walk into the Forbidden Forest from muggle space. The Forbidden Forest is a part of Hogwarts/Hogsmead that exists only in magical space (my opinion). MY GREAT THEORY- I believe that the archway behind the Leaky Cauldron, that leads into Diagon Alley is not an archway at all but a magical transportation device. It is a portal or portway in the same sense as a portkey. I don't think that Diagon Alley actually exists in London. I don't think it is a secret space hidden behind the Leaky Cauldron. ALthough, the Leaky Cauldron is in London. At best Diagon Alley exists in a separate unique reality of it's own and the archway is a transportation device that takes you between these alternate realities. That's my story and I'm sticking to it. ---------end bboy_mn----------------- From editor at texas.net Mon Aug 12 01:48:37 2002 From: editor at texas.net (Amanda Geist) Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2002 20:48:37 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Gryffindor Coat-of-Arms References: Message-ID: <001c01c241a2$71537f00$a37763d1@texas.net> No: HPFGUIDX 42497 Haggridd said, about the attitude (position) of the Gryffindor lion on its coat of arms: > Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the usual way for these heraldic > charges to face "dexter", to the right? Having the Gryffindor lion > face left is another signal that something unusual is happening here. You are not wrong; charges generally do face dexter unless there's some reason for them not to. There is no particularly charged symbolic meaning to them facing sinister. And in this case, there's a reason for it to face sinister. The only illustration of any armory at all is found in the front of Philosopher's Stone; it did not appear in the US version. It is a line drawing of the Hogwarts coat, which combines all four Houses with the H in the inescutcheon overall. I believe JKR drew it, although I could be mistaken. Gryffindor is in the most "honorable" place on the shield, dexter chief. If the lion were facing to dexter as well, it would be staring off the side of the shield, its back to the Slytherin snake. So it is drawn facing sinister, so it and the snake face each other, respectant, over the top of the inescutcheon. It was an aesthetic consideration, borne out by the fact that Ravenclaw's eagle and Hufflepuff's badger also manage to face each other--the eagle's head is turned to dexter, and the badger, while its body is aligned to sinister, is regardant--looking back over its shoulder at the eagle. It could be argued, I suppose, that the House arms are depicted in this way on the combined Hogwarts coat, and their actual attitudes when depicted singly are different. But we have no canon to base this on. So I personally think that the lion faces to sinister to allow it to be a part of an aesthetically pleasing combination in the Hogwarts arms, and there was no other deep meaning. --Amanda From gohana_chan02 at lycos.com Mon Aug 12 04:38:35 2002 From: gohana_chan02 at lycos.com (Hana) Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 00:38:35 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: the Weasleys Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42498 Penny said: >>I also think Ginny's statement makes no sense. She's 11 when she makes that statement. At that point, Bill had been gone *at least* 3 years (and that's only if you assume Charlie graduated the year before Harry arrived, which I also think is faulty on a number of levels). So, if true, then Bill had first come to Hogwarts 10 years before -- i.e., when Ginny was one year old. She has no memory then.<< Sometimes people "remember" things from when they were really young because people have told them about them. I know that I fell off a couch when I was 16 months old and broke my arm. I don't actually ~remember~ the incident, but it was told to me so many times that I tell it like it was a memory. If year old Ginny made a fuss and wanted to go with Bill to school, and she was reminded of this often enough she would be able to say she wanted to go since Bill did because she knows she did even if she doesn't really remember it. Does that make sense? As for when Charlie and Bill attended Hogwarts, if we assume that the Lexicon is right and Charlie was born in 1967, he started school in 1978 he would have left in 1985 when Ginny was 4. If Bill is a year older than Charlie (though he could be more than that) then he attended from 1977 - 1984 at which point Ginny would have been 3 and definitely old enough to remember things, even if she didn't remember very much. That would put Bill leaving 7 years before Harry starts, and Charlie leaving 6 years before Harry. For a completely different Weasley related topic: Does anyone think that Percy is so stuck up for rules and being responsible because he probably had to do a lot of babysitting at a young age? He's 2 years older than the twins, 4 years older than Ron and 5 years older than Ginny. By the time Ron and Ginny were 5 and 4 respectively he would have been 9 and probably told to mind his brother and sister while Molly tried to deal with the twins (who are hard enough to handle as teens let alone as children ;)) Bill and Charlie would only have been helpful during holidays when they weren't at school, and then they would have their own jobs and would not have been around. Arthur seems to spend a lot of time at work, so Molly would be stuck at home with 5 children under the age of 10! Opinions? --- --Hana __________________________________________________________ Win a First Class Trip to Hawaii to Vacation Elvis Style! http://r.lycos.com/r/sagel_mail/http://www.elvis.lycos.com/sweepstakes From pat_mahony at hotmail.com Mon Aug 12 04:42:43 2002 From: pat_mahony at hotmail.com (Patrick Mahony) Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 04:42:43 +0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] forbidden forest Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42499 Tara wrote: "What I'm wondering is, aren't there werewolves in the forbidden forest as well? I seem to remember either Draco or Ron stating in exclamation, (before entering the forest), "..they're werewolves in there...". Well, then are we to assume that when there isn't a full moon, that there are regular men walking around the forbidden forest? I find that hard to believe with all the other monstrous creatures about! Also, is there a spell on the boundaries of the forest keeping all the creatures inside of it or do they stay within the forrest on their own free will?" The thing is, we actually know very little of what actually lives within the Forbidden Forest. Here's a list of what has been encountered in the Forest: -Unicorns -Centaurs -The Ford Anglia -Aragog and the spiders There are probably others, but I can't think of them now. The stuff about werewolves, I think, is simply a rumour. Tom Riddle accused Hagrid of raising werewolf pups, but that is highly unlikely, and the fact that werewolves are human most of the time makes it unlikely they would spend all that time in the Forest. The reason the forest is "Forbidden" could be for some other reason more than life threatening danger, such as Aragog, but I won't go into that. As for a spell binding the creatures into the Forest, I think it is very possible, except I can't think of any canon to back it up. Roo _________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com From jodel at aol.com Mon Aug 12 04:38:01 2002 From: jodel at aol.com (jodel at aol.com) Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 00:38:01 EDT Subject: 24 hours/Bristol Message-ID: <69.2b7c51b6.2a8895a9@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 42500 I already uploaded my ideas concerning McGonagall, Hagrid ,Sirius and the missing 24 hours. But I forgot to continue the arguement far enough to take in Hagrid's Bristol comment. Oops. To continue, i have Sirius having been to Hogwarts attempting to get custody of his godson and finally giving up, leaving the motorcycle with hagrid (who has probably always admired it) and disapperating to go and hunt down Pettigrew. It's as well that Sirius did leave Hagrid the use of the motorcycle, since it seems likely, if uncertain, that Dumbledore may never have gotten back to Hogwarts all that day. With the motorcycle, even if Dumbledore did get back to Hagrid by owl or by Floo, Hagrid would have been able to say that he would be able to get to Little Whinging, even if he had not been there before. We know that Hogwarts is is Scotland. Most of the theories which i have read put it as being more likely to be in the Highlands than the lowlands. Flying due south from almost anywhere in the highlands would send one over the Irish Sea and the mountains of Wales, thinly populated areas where a flying motorcycle is not likely to be noticed. The Port of Bristol would serve very well as a large well-lit beacon marking the point that an airborne traveler should turn eastward and follow the railroads across southern England into Surrey. Presumably Hagrid is able to manage a strong enough location spell to hone in on Dumbledore once he got close enough to where Dumbledore (and Minerva) were waiting. There are probably more complex solutions, but this seemed simple enought to be at least reasonably plausable. -JOdel From eloiseherisson at aol.com Mon Aug 12 06:48:17 2002 From: eloiseherisson at aol.com (eloiseherisson at aol.com) Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 02:48:17 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: McGonagall, Hagrid, 24 hours & another Pettigrew myst... Message-ID: <12.23a1ac28.2a88b431@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 42501 In a message dated 11/08/2002 20:51:17 GMT Standard Time, jodel at aol.com writes: > If Hagrid did NOT return to Hogwarts how did McGonagall get the information > of where Dumbledore was going to be that night out of him? Quite simply because she bumped into Hagrid and got the information from him *before* he left to get Harry. Yes, it's a short time frame, But Dumbledore must have seen both of them within a very short period, McGonagall to inform her that he was going to be absent and Hagrid to tell him of his mission. How about they met at the bottom of Dumbledore's stairs as Hagrid was going out and Minerva about to go up? Alternatively (and I think this is better), Dumbledore didn't see McGonagall at all: he informed Hagrid and told *him* to tell Minerva that he was going away. >Dumbledore is the Headmaster. McGonagall is his deputy (we will assume). It >stands to reason that Dumbledore was away from his office from the moment >that it was known that Voldemort's attack had somehow gone awry (sometime >Halloween Night) until after he left Harry on the Dursleys' doorstep. While >we do not know for sure that McGonagall was already the deputy headmistress >at the tme of Voldemort's defeat, it does seem likely. In which case she was >probably left in charge. In fact, Minerva doesn't seem to be taking those Deputy Head duties very seriously, does she? She's left her post and spent all day sitting on a garden wall. > > JOdel: >Side note: We are all familiar with Dumbledore's theory that Harry's proximity to >Voldemort's distruction has resulted in his having been granted >some of Voldemort's power. But there is strong circumstantial evidence which >suggests that Pettigrew was also at or near ground zero. What did he get from >his proximity to that event? Eloise: Not just the proximity, but the actual *connection* of the curse that failed. I don't think that we can suggest that Pettigrew is a similar case. JOdel: >Well, Voldemort's wand obeys him. (Another bit of circumstantial evidence >that it was the overlay of Tom Riddle's power which prompted that wand's >brother to choose Harry) He has sufficient power to perform the killing >curse. We don't know what else. Can Peter also talk to snakes these days? Eloise: But this is far from being the only case where we see one wizard using anothers wand. And Pettigrew was a DE. I imagine all DEs were adept at AK. We really have no evidence that you need to be particularly powerful (just *bad*!) to do that. I seriously doubt that he's a Parselmouth. As for the brother wands - well, there is quite a bit of evidence in the text that there are great similarities *in some ways* between Harry and Voldemort, aside from the connection of the curse that failed; this surely is part of the choice theme. Harry and Riddle (remember, it was the young, undeveloped Tom Riddle, who had presumably, like Harry been unaware that he even was a wizard, let alone developed any of his powers, not the souped-up Voldemort who attempted to curse Harry, whom the wand 'chose') had similar power, similar potential, similar needs in their 'best-fit' wands. Voldemort's wand could surely have been used to do great good (this is more or less implied by Ollivander), just as Harry's must have the *potential* for great evil, as does Harry himself. Both wands responded to the *potential* of the young wizard. I don't think we are suppose to think that Harry's power and the difficulty the Sorting Hat has in placing him are entirely the result of his encounter with Voldemort, although that encounter and connection have muddied the water somewhat. Harry's being a Parselmouth and the direct connection via the scar which conveys Voldemort's feelings of hatred are obviously the direct legacy of the curse that failed, but beyond that, I personally think that the connection that Dumbledore makes is there as much for literary reason than anything else: it gives Harry some psychological interest in his repeated doubts about his worthiness as a Gryffindor.) The fact that Voldemort wanted him out of the way to begin with suggests that there was something extraordinary about Harry right from the start. Eloise [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From FalconKenobi at aol.com Mon Aug 12 06:46:29 2002 From: FalconKenobi at aol.com (FalconKenobi at aol.com) Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 02:46:29 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The "Missing 24-hours" - another theory Message-ID: <1b8.4a8780e.2a88b3c5@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 42502 In a message dated 11/08/02 22:03:05 GMT Daylight Time, rvotaw at i-55.com writes: > Also, come to think of it, Mrs. > Weasley did have several small children at home. Baby Ginny, Ron, who > must've been about 19 months, a couple of 3 year olds and so on. There > would definitely have been someone to get Harry's mind off his problems > there. However, would the other kids remember him? Simple memory charm > would work, I guess, but still, let me see. The twins probably not at 3 > they're a bit too young. Percy would've been 5, so it's possible. But he > doesn't spend a lot of time with our Harry anyway to tell him about it. He > hasn't been around Bill and Charlie much either. This idea's definitely growing on me... another reason the older kids might not remember him... if it was a weekday, and if young witches/wizards do go to muggle school - they would have been at school during the day so they wouldn't have seen him all that much anyway.... of course - if this 24 hour was a weekend or a school holiday it totally throws my theory out of the window.... LPS Cassie ~I am one of those melodramtic fools, neurotic to the bone, no doubt about it~ http://www.aemslash.co.uk - Every Generation Has A Legend:The Fanfiction Of Adelaide Elizabeth Morgan http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cassie_fic [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From catlady at wicca.net Mon Aug 12 07:03:44 2002 From: catlady at wicca.net (catlady_de_los_angeles) Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 07:03:44 -0000 Subject: too many topics to list, please look for your name Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42503 I have yet to understand how a bunch of Death Eaters (the ones in Azkaban) could have known that Pettigrew was the Secret Keeper who led Voldemort to the Potters' secret hide-out WHILE *Snape* the spy didn't know. Gail B: << is wondering what butter-beer tastes like: could it be anything like butter-scotch? >> I have always had that impression! But it had better not taste like hot buttered rum: I tried that once and it was nasty. Phyllis erisedstraeh wrote: << I'm a new member, but I searched the archives and didn't find anything on this, so here goes - JKR said that there is a relationship between Godric Hollow and Godric Gryffindor, so I decided to investigate who St. Godric was >> Actually, someone had the idea once before: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups-Archives/message/4994 but that was in September 2000, so it's a good thing to bring the topic up again. Eloise has: << always wondered (snip) how the Dursleys got back to the mainland after Hagrid and Harry had taken the boat. >> I've always assumed that, once the storm ended, they came out of the house, and screamed and waved their arms until someone on shore heard the ruckus and came and got them. Amanda wrote: << Gryffindor's lion faces sinister, Scotland's faces dexter >> I think that Gryffindor's lion faces the normal dexter EXCEPT when it is quartered into the Hogwarts arms. If the pictured heraldic charges are as animated as photos (let alone paintings), the lion would REFUSE to turn its back on the treacherous serpent. If not, some wizard artist just thought the Hogwarts arms would look prettier with the lion facing sinister. Cliff1515 wrote: << In the fourth book the champions had to fight dragons for the 1st task. These dragons are the color of the houses when you mix up the colors >> Thank you! I had never noticed that before. Richelle's aunt said: << Pettigrew "just sounds like a rat." >> Someone on this list once explained that both his names mean "to become smaller", as "to peter out" and "to grow petty". That suits him, altho' I think that 'Pettigrew" could also sound like "pedigree" if one of his relatives who was a bigtime Purebloodist. However, I think your aunt should be careful to rid her mind of these thoughts whenever she meets a real-life Muggle named Pettigrew. Pip!Squeak wrote: << Ron's brother Charlie is doing research ["Charlie's in Romania studying dragons" PS/SS p.80 UK paperback) and there is NO mention that he's connected to any wizarding university. >> I often wonder whether he (and the whole wizard team at the Rumanian dragon preserve) is more *researching* dragons or *wrangling* dragons -- transporting them to Hogwarts for the First Task, with all those dragon wranglers Stunning, seems more like using the dragons than studying them, and is that preserve also the source of dragonhide for boots and gloves, dragon heartstrings for wands, and dragon's blood for its twelve uses? Rebecca wrote: << Are we sure wizarding photographs and wizarding paintings are the same? (snip) The paintings seem much more interactive. Any opinions? >> I agree, and I wonder if the AI paintings are unique to Hogwarts and possibly other very wealthy magical places like Malfoy Manor and the Ministry headquarters. However, what about the pictures on the Famous Wizards cards? It seems they all act like photographs, but the ancient famous people lived before photography was invented, so pictures of them can't be photographs... Pip!Squeak wrote: << "You'd have died like your father, too arrogant to believe you might be mistaken in Black..." How does Snape know James *died* believing in Black? >> I've always understood that sentence to mean that James died BECAUSE he trusted Black, not that he still trusted Black at the time of his death. "Died like" meaning "died for the same reason", not "died with the same thought in mind" or "wearing the same clothes". Jodel wrote: << Given the fact that Dumbledore DID make that particular defense at Karkaroff's trial, WHY did Karkaroff go running to Snape once the Dark Mark started returning? >> Because they had both betrayed Voldemort (Karkaroff only by turning in other Death Eaters to save his own skin) and therefore were scheduled to be killed by Voldemort and "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". Felinia wrote: << but he did end up saving his life, the same as he would any other Hogwarts student who'd wound up in danger, >> It once occured to me that perhaps James didn't care at all whether Severus was killed, but urgently risked his own life to save his friend Remus from being sent to Azkaban for homicide. Hei Lun wrote: << And arguably, James saved Snape's life as much to prevent himself from being expelled (or worse) as to actually save Snape's life. >> That's what Snape's statement (that James got cold feet at the last minute) indicates that Snape believes, but I don't think James was in any danger of being punished: I think James wasn't in on the "prank" and didn't knew about it until Sirius told him -- whereupon he ran off to fix the problem. Grey Wolf wrote: << "The night they died I had decided to check on Peter, to know whether he was still trustworthy. But when I arrived to his den, he had already left. >> Your Spanish translation has a divergence from the English language text: "The night they died, I'd arranged to check on Peter, make sure he was still safe, but when I arrived at his hiding place, he'd gone." I suppose one *could* argue that Sirius meant 'safe to trust' when he said 'safe', but I believe he meant 'safe from being captured and tortured by Voldemort". Boogaloo wrote: << there would be no look of triumph from him- if that knowledge contained the certainty or even the possibility of Harry's complete destruction being necessary to finally and completely destroy Voldemort. >> IMHO, that's why the look of triumph swiftly departed, and Dumbledore looked older and tired than Harry had ever seen before: his initial pleasure that Voldemort had made himself vulnerable was followed by his realisation that using that vulnerability would kill Harry. Nicole wrote: << Then, in the tradition of many power-hungry beings, he found that once he killed his father and grandparents, he hungered for more. The more power he got, the more he craved. (snip) I think that when he was 11, he may have been just as good a kid as Harry was. >> I suspect that what you suggest is what JKR intended, in line with her preaching about making choices. However, Diary!Tom said: "I fashioned myself a new name, a name I knew wizards everywhere would one day fear to speak, when I had become the greatest sorcerer in the world!" "Fear to speak". *Before* he killed his father, it was already his ambition to be feared by all wizarding folk. And he raved insanely about "Salazar Slytherin's noble plan". He said it had taken him five years to learn how to open the Chamber of Secrets, so he had started searching for it already *in his first year* at Hogwarts. So he was already a loony when he was a first-year student ... he wanted to kill "Mudbloods" and terrorize wizards, not just to kill his father. From elfundeb at comcast.net Sun Aug 11 22:04:52 2002 From: elfundeb at comcast.net (elfundeb) Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2002 18:04:52 -0400 Subject: The Missing 24 Hours, Still Message-ID: <007301c24183$1e9074e0$3a3b3244@arlngt01.va.comcast.net> No: HPFGUIDX 42504 I started writing this yesterday, but RL intervened. What I started out trying to do was to develop plausible answers to the following questions: 1. How did Dumbledore find out about the events in Godric's Hollow? His instructions to Hagrid were very specific, so he clearly knew more than that the Fidelius Charm had been broken. 2. How did all the rumors spread? Everyone seems to be in the know by 8:30 a.m. on Nov. 1. 3. Where were Hagrid and Harry all day? 1. How did Dumbledore find out about the events in Godric's Hollow? I don't think Dumbledore could have been at Godric's Hollow, because I can't imagine that he would have left Harry in the ruins for a moment. However, he must have become aware instantly of what had happened there because he was able to dispatch Hagrid to Godric's Hollow with very specific instructions, and Hagrid removed Harry safely before the Muggles arrived. Unless the house exploded silently, the Muggles would have been aware that something had happened and arrived relatively quickly. While Dumbledore may have had a magical detection device that would have told him the Fidelius Charm had been broken, it would not have told him (or anyone else) that Voldemort had turned into a noxious vapor and disappeared. And I don't think Dumbledore knows what happened telepathically, or he would not have needed to debrief Harry about the graveyard in GoF. Therefore, because --according to the rumors -- everyone seems to know what happened to Voldemort, someone must've seen and reported it. Could it have been Snape? I agree with Eloise (#42248) that because of the mechanics of the Fidelius charm, Snape could only have been there at Voldemort's invitation. But I've been trying to reconcile that with my view of Snape as a double agent who, at that time, had been under suspicion by Voldemort ever since he discovered that the Fidelius Charm had been used (#39904). But perhaps Voldemort took Snape along as a sort of test, wanting to see how he'd react to the demise of James and Lily. Thus, fortuitously, he is there as a witness to the destruction of Voldemort's body and the departure of the noxious gas. Either because he is Dumbledore's spy, or because Voldemort, his other boss, is gone, he informs Dumbledore immediately. But Dumbledore tells Snape to go to the DEs and gauge their mood, which is why Dumbledore taps Hagrid, not Snape who is already on the scene, for the job of rescuing Harry. (Incidentally, I think the voice Harry hears really is James, and Lupin is not "surprised" but is struggling with his own memories of James and the demise of the Marauders and his fear of revealing too much to Harry. Snape was there, but wasn't talking; I'm not even convinced he went inside the house.) 2. Where was Hagrid all day? Starting at the beginning, Dumbledore gives Hagrid his instructions very soon after the events in Godric's Hollow (it must be, because he arrives there before the Muggles). On his way out, he is met by McGonagall. Hagrid tells her that Dumbledore is sending him on an errand; she asks where Dumbledore is and Hagrid tells her only that he will be going to 4 Privet Drive. (Hagrid may have told her he will be meeting Dumbledore there, but does not mention Harry.) He then leaves for Godric's Hollow. Because he arrives before the Muggles, he must've gone either by Floo to the Potters' fireplace or by Apparating (I think he can Apparate, though he may be unlicensed to do so, because I think that's how he reached the hut on the rock to give Harry his Hogwarts letter). However, he will likely have a transportation problem upon departure because I doubt he can Apparate with a baby. Nor could he use Floo to get Harry to the Dursleys because (a) the fireplace has been destroyed, and (b) the Dursleys aren't connected to the Floo network. Perhaps he had been planning to use a broomstick, but Sirius solves this problem by giving him the motorcycle. So where does Hagrid go now? If the attack occurred on Halloween, it can't be much after midnight by now. Dumbledore wasn't going to be at Privet Drive till the following evening, so he probably told Hagrid to lie low during the day. I don't think he went to the Weasleys, despite the clarification that Hagrid might have flown back via Bristol to follow the motorways (I'm assuming here that Ottery St. Catchpole is in Devon near the real Ottery St. Mary's), because the lights might have been bright enough to make him visible in the evenings. I also don't believe Hagrid went to Hogwarts. In addition to the reasons stated in Pip's geography lesson, if he did go that way, I'm not certain that he would have had time between sunset and midnight to get from Scotland to Surrey, assuming that the motorcycle can fly at approximately the same speed as the Weasley's car (by my calculations, it took Harry and Ron 7-8 hours to fly to Scotland from London, as they left shortly after 11 and arrived at Hogwarts after dark (following the train's direct route). I do think, however, that there were places to hide in Godric's Hollow, which I imagine to be a wizarding village west of Bristol in South Wales (see Catlady's #40558 on Godric Gryffindor being Welsh). Where would Hagrid go when he has a break in carrying out a sad and stressful duty? I'd look for him at the nearest wizards' pub, the Godric's Hollow equivalent of the Leaky Cauldron or the Three Broomsticks (thanks to Chelsea for putting the pub idea in my head!). Assuming Godric's Hollow is somewhere in South Wales, and assuming that the motorcycle can fly at about the same rate as the Flying Ford Anglia, I estimate that it would take about 3 or so hours to fly to Surrey. The pub also provides a convenient answer to my third question: 3. How did all the rumors spread? The rumors begin flying quickly and by dawn much of the WW already knows that Voldemort is "gone" and some version of the events at Godric's Hollow, since Vernon Dursley sees them on his way to work, whispering excitedly. McGonagall must have passed them, in cat form, after her arrival in Little Whinging, because she keeps vigil at 4 Privet Drive from 8:30 a.m. to midnight, yet she knows all the rumors. The rumors could have spread through contacts at the MOM, where I believe Dumbledore may have gone to confer with Ministry officials, or they might have started through Hagrid, now ensconced in the pub in Godric's Hollow, showing off Harry's scar to the few late-night customers while downing his first tankard. That sounds *just* like Hagrid. In fact, he's enjoying himself so much in the pub's backroom that he doesn't set off for Privet Drive when he's supposed to; thus, Dumbledore remarks that Hagrid is late. Debbie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Mon Aug 12 10:10:46 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 10:10:46 -0000 Subject: The "Missing 24-hours" - another theory In-Reply-To: <009401c2417a$e2f640c0$649ecdd1@istu757> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42505 Richelle Votaw wrote: > I've kept lots of babies, and I'd much rather keep a small infant > that didn't know me than a 15 month old who didn't know me. A 15 > month old (particularly a distressed 15 month old) is not easily > comforted. I would think that in Harry's situation (parents dead, > mum murdered in front of him, big bad guy in robe pointing wand at > him, bright light, house falling down, all in a matter of minutes) it > would take an experienced caregiver to calm him. With a 15 month old > it's not simply a matter of crying himself to sleep. A traumatized > 15 month old could easily make himself physically ill in such a > situation (and in situations far less traumatic for that matter). > Someone with ample experience in caring for babies would be able to > calm him much better than, say, a half-giant. Also, come to think of > it, Mrs. Weasley did have several small children at home. Baby > Ginny, Ron, who must've been about 19 months, a couple of 3 year olds > and so on. There would definitely have been someone to get Harry's > mind off his problems there. Yes, the Molly-took-care-of-Harry-for-a-day (THE FIRST MEMORY FRIEND) theory seems to be gaining strenght, doesn't it? It covers Hagrid's possible incompetence with children (which I'm not sure I believe, but I definetely agree that Molly is a better choice), and his comments after the bike ride. > However, would the other kids remember > him? Simple memory charm would work, I guess, but still, let me see. > The twins probably not at 3 they're a bit too young. Percy would've > been 5, so it's possible. But he doesn't spend a lot of time with our > Harry anyway to tell him about it. He hasn't been around Bill and > Charlie much either. Well, now I'm rambling, so I'll shut up. > > Richelle Since I think it's agreed that Charlie is at least 6 yers older than Percy, it would indicate that the bigger boys were both at Hogwarts (Being school time and all), and everyone else were probably too young too remember. Percy *could* remember -although I don't remember much before I'm 6-8 years old- but it's possible that Molly took the twins and Percy to friend/family so they were not underfoot. Another possibility is that they remember Hagrid's visit, but by centering in him, they fail to remember that he was bringing a baby to their mother. A baby in the Weasley's lie is commonplace, while a semigiant is not. The second could have shadowed the ifrst in their undeveloped memories. JOdel wrote: > If Hagrid did NOT return to Hogwarts how did McGonagall get the > information of where Dumbledore was going to be that night out of > him? He could've used the fireplace at the Weasleys. After all, he crashed there for a day too, if he took Harry to be cared by the expert mother Molly is. He could've contacted McGonagall to explain his sudden vanishing, and to tell her she could find Dumbledore for more explanations at Privet Drive. Or he could've just sent an owl. He doesn't really tell her that much, just were to find Dumbledore. The other information she could've picked it up from the rumours that I assume were iniciated by the MoM officials that were to the scene of the crime (i.e. the ruined house at Godric's Hollow). > At some time during the day Sirius Black shows up at Hogwarts. He was > too late at Godric's Hollow to witness the attack or to meet up with > Hagrid, but he hung around in his animagus form (which not even > Dumbledore knew about) to listen to what the Ministry investigators > had to say about events. At some point during the investigation > Dumbledore showed up with Ministry officials. That's how Sirius got > the news that Harry had survived and that Hagrid had taken him back > to Hogwarts. Dumbledore probably also mentioned his intention of > sending Harry to his mother's relatives. Why the need to complicate things thus? Sirius tells Harry (and I doubt Sirius lied during that or any other conversation with Harry) that he arrived to *Godric's Hollow*, to the ruined house, in time to find Hagrid with the child. He tried to get the child, and when he didn't, he lent Hagrid his bike -I assume so Hagrid was safer while with the child, since he would have had to *walk* to Dumbledore if not- and, with no responsabilities as godfather hanging over him, Sirius went to hunt a rat. > Sirius was the child's godfather, and he may have met Petunia Dursley > at some point during his and Lily's time at Hogwarts and wouldn't > have thought much of that idea. He raced off (on his motorcycle) to > Hagrid and made a valiant attempt to get Hagrid to turn Harry over to > him, instead. Hagrid is very, VERY good at stonewalling. Once Sirius > realized that he was not going to be able to "save" Harry from the > Dursleys, he decided that at least he would avenge James and Lily's > deaths. He "lent" Hagrid the motorcycle, hurried to Hogsmeade and > disapperated. I insist that I don't see the necessity of having Hagrid or Sirius go all the way to Hogwarts during that night, especially when canon indicates that they last met at Godric's Hollow since Hagrid left on the bike (I like to think that he left for the Weasleys, but that's open to interpretation), and Sirius went to hunt Peter down. That said, I *have* liked a lot your explanation on why Sirius lent Hagrid his priced bike, which fits nicely in any theory. Hope that helps, Grey Wolf From eloiseherisson at aol.com Mon Aug 12 12:02:31 2002 From: eloiseherisson at aol.com (eloiseherisson at aol.com) Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 08:02:31 EDT Subject: DEs knowing about Pettigrew (was re: too many topics to list) Message-ID: <115.159947ff.2a88fdd7@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 42506 In a message dated 12/08/2002 08:04:04 GMT Standard Time, catlady at wicca.net writes: > I have yet to understand how a bunch of Death Eaters (the ones in > Azkaban) could have known that Pettigrew was the Secret Keeper who > led Voldemort to the Potters' secret hide-out WHILE *Snape* the spy > didn't know. > Aah...I knew there was a problem with my theory that Snape was part of the party which accompanied Voldemort to Godric's Hollow - and this is it. Obviously, he would then have known that Peter was the Secret Keeper and I have always believed that he did genuinely believe that it was Sirius who had betrayed the Potters. Otherwise, it raises his actions to new heights of malice, which I refuse to admit! ;-) UNLESS.......of course, they're masked and hooded, aren't they and wouldn't necessarily know who each other were, would they? Particularly if they were drawn from different cells. Phew! Although then I have to explain why in Harry's dream he seems to have subliminal memories of Snape and Malfoy. I think we have to assume that Snape didn't actually know that Peter was a DE, or Dumbledore would immediately have known who the mole in the organisation was and therefore so, presumably would Sirius and James and the switch would never have been made. As for how the DEs in Azkaban know? Well, first of all, we don't know at what point DEs in the know went into Azkaban - quite possibly *after* Sirius, in the post-Voldemort round-ups. By this time, someone (it would only take one) may have worked out that his fellow cell member was missing on the night in question, or perhaps Peter had even told someone that he had an important mission with Voldemort that night, I wouldn't put it past him to bolster his ego like that - someone who perhaps knew that Pettigrew had a connection with the Potters and who could put two and two together. Snape's spying duties after Voldemort's fall must have been rather different (particularly if the DEs all went their own ways and tried to cover their tracks, rather than banding together to try and trying to help Voldemort) so that he didn't hear these rumours. I don't know. It's a bit weak, but worth a try. Eloise [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From pennylin at swbell.net Mon Aug 12 12:57:01 2002 From: pennylin at swbell.net (Penny Linsenmayer) Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 07:57:01 -0500 Subject: the Weasley Ages and more on the "Missing 24-hours" thread References: Message-ID: <092201c241ff$c041d140$4f5ffea9@cq5hs01> No: HPFGUIDX 42507 Hi all -- I said: >>I also think Ginny's statement makes no sense. She's 11 when she makes that statement. At that point, Bill had been gone *at least* 3 years (and that's only if you assume Charlie graduated the year before Harry arrived, which I also think is faulty on a number of levels). So, if true, then Bill had first come to Hogwarts 10 years before -- i.e., when Ginny was one year old. She has no memory then.<< Hana replied: <<<<<<>>>>>>>>> Yes, it does. However, I think my example shows that Ginny was, *at most,* only one-year old when Bill left for Hogwarts. I actually believe that he is older (26/27 at the time of GoF), which means Ginny wasn't even born when Bill left for Hogwarts. I do think it's possible that she remembers him leaving for Hogwarts at some later year in his time there & her statement is just strangely-worded (it implies that she remembers him *first* going off to Hogwarts, which couldn't possibly be right under almost any scenario, given even the most compressed view of their age difference). But, I don't think she could remember him first leaving for Hogwarts at all, since I don't think she was even born yet. Hana again: <<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>> While I do agree mostly with the Lexicon timeline for the Weasley ages, I did want to point out something that I"m sure Steve would agree with (but he's on vacation). The Lexicon is not infallible -- I've seen some people citing it as though it's some JKR-approved source. Steve is working with the same canon assumptions & the same canon holes as the rest of us -- but he includes essays that make what he believes are the strongest arguments on various topics. In any case, under the above example, it's clear that Ginny probably only had a memory of Bill's last year (or one of his last years) at Hogwarts. Switching to Debbie's analysis of the Missing 24-hours: <<<<<>>>>>>>>> What about Fawkes? Is it possible that Fawkes has a means of communicating with his owner? He can't seem to communicate with Harry other than with body language (trying to make it clear to Harry that they should all link together & grab his tail feathers). But might there not be some bond between Fawkes & Dumbledore which allows for some greater communication? <<<<<<(Incidentally, I think the voice Harry hears really is James, and Lupin is not "surprised" but is struggling with his own memories of James and the demise of the Marauders and his fear of revealing too much to Harry. Snape was there, but wasn't talking; I'm not even convinced he went inside the house.)>>>>>> I agree that the voice Harry hears is really James. I think Lupin's reaction is definitely that of someone who is trying to conceal his emotions at remembering one of his best friends & the night of his death. <<<<<<>>>>>>>>> I definitely like this theory, and it also means that there would have been others there, besides Hagrid, to be sure that Hagrid gave Harry something appropriate to eat, changed his diaper, etc. I don't necessarily think though that Hagrid was incapable of handling this duty on his own. I don't like the Harry went to Molly Weasley theory, because it just doesn't make much sense why Hagrid would backtrack up to Bristol -- to get from Devon to Surrey would be a straight shot due east. Yes, I like this pub theory very much. Penny ----- Original Message ----- From: Hana To: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, August 11, 2002 11:38 PM Subject: Re: [HPforGrownups] Re: the Weasleys For a completely different Weasley related topic: Does anyone think that Percy is so stuck up for rules and being responsible because he probably had to do a lot of babysitting at a young age? He's 2 years older than the twins, 4 years older than Ron and 5 years older than Ginny. By the time Ron and Ginny were 5 and 4 respectively he would have been 9 and probably told to mind his brother and sister while Molly tried to deal with the twins (who are hard enough to handle as teens let alone as children ;)) Bill and Charlie would only have been helpful during holidays when they weren't at school, and then they would have their own jobs and would not have been around. Arthur seems to spend a lot of time at work, so Molly would be stuck at home with 5 children under the age of 10! Opinions? --- --Hana __________________________________________________________ Win a First Class Trip to Hawaii to Vacation Elvis Style! http://r.lycos.com/r/sagel_mail/http://www.elvis.lycos.com/sweepstakes 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 eloiseherisson at aol.com Mon Aug 12 13:48:43 2002 From: eloiseherisson at aol.com (eloiseherisson at aol.com) Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 09:48:43 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Gryffindor Coat-of-Arms Message-ID: <194.b5df59f.2a8916bb@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 42508 In a message dated 11/08/2002 21:39:32 GMT Standard Time, jkusalavagemd at yahoo.com writes: > > ANYway, the point being, Gryffindor's lion may well have been > established > > before Scotland's was. How far back does the usage of the red lion > > go?Scotland may be the one extending the honor. The differences are > > small--Gryffindor's lion faces sinister, Scotland's faces dexter; > the colors > > have been flipped, and Scotland has the tressure. > > Since you've quoted this point of Amanda's again, you might be interested in this which I found out: There is no evidence that the lion rampant became "the Arms Dominion of Scotland" before 1222, when it appeared on the seal of Alexander II. It may have been derived from the arms of the old Earls of Northumbria and Huntingdon, from whom some of the Scottish kings were descended, although a legendary explanation is that it was carried on the armorial ensign of Scotland ever since its first founding by the (mythical) King Fergus I, c. 300BC. (Information from the Flags of the World website, www.fotw.ca/flags/gb-sc-rb.html#origin) (Note: 'Scotland' did not exist in 300 BC) So it appears that the Gryffindor lion could well pre-date the Royal Arms of Scotland. Eloise [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From eloiseherisson at aol.com Mon Aug 12 13:48:45 2002 From: eloiseherisson at aol.com (eloiseherisson at aol.com) Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 09:48:45 EDT Subject: Godric's Hollow/ The Gryffindor lion Message-ID: <113.159c3ec0.2a8916bd@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 42509 I've had a thought about Godric's hollow. Over the last few days, I've had a really strong feeling that Godric's Hollow is a real place. No, it's alright, I can distinguish fact from fantasy still (just!), I mean I feel that it could be a place JKR knows, only she's given it a different name. JKR comes from near Chepstow. If you follow the River Wye northwards from there, past Tintern, Monmouth and up towards Ross-on Wye, you will pass through the village of Goodrich, etymologically the same as Godric, I believe (at any rate I believe the surname Goodrich is derived from Godric), and nestling in the river *valley*. Now I confess that I don't know the village, I'm afraid I've only been to the spectacular castle there. Perhaps if anyone does know it, they could say if they think it could be a possibility. It's about 30 miles from Bristol as the crow (or motorbike) flies, slightly west of north. Again, I don't think you would necessarily fly to Surrey from there via Bristol ................................. In a message dated 11/08/2002 21:39:32 GMT Standard Time, jkusalavagemd at yahoo.com writes: > > ANYway, the point being, Gryffindor's lion may well have been > established > > before Scotland's was. How far back does the usage of the red lion > > go?Scotland may be the one extending the honor. The differences are > > small--Gryffindor's lion faces sinister, Scotland's faces dexter; > the colors > > have been flipped, and Scotland has the tressure. > > Since you've quoted this point of Amanda's again, you might be interested in this which I found out: There is no evidence that the lion rampant became "the Arms Dominion of Scotland" before 1222, when it appeared on the seal of Alexander II. It may have been derived from the arms of the old Earls of Northumbria and Huntingdon, from whom some of the Scottish kings were descended, although a legendary explanation is that it was carried on the armorial ensign of Scotland ever since its first founding by the (mythical) King Fergus I, c. 300BC. (Information from the Flags of the World website, www.fotw.ca/flags/gb-sc-rb.html#origin) (Note: 'Scotland' did not exist in 300 BC) So it appears that the Gryffindor lion could well pre-date the Royal Arms of Scotland. Eloise [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From rusalka at ix.netcom.com Mon Aug 12 14:19:22 2002 From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants) Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 14:19:22 -0000 Subject: DEs knowing about Pettigrew (was re: too many topics to list) In-Reply-To: <115.159947ff.2a88fdd7@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42510 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., eloiseherisson at a... wrote: > As for how the DEs in Azkaban know? Well, first of all, we don't know at what > point DEs in the know went into Azkaban - quite possibly *after* Sirius, in > the post-Voldemort round-ups. By this time, someone (it would only take one) > may have worked out that his fellow cell member was missing on the night in > question, or perhaps Peter had even told someone that he had an important > mission with Voldemort that night, I wouldn't put it past him to bolster his > ego like that - someone who perhaps knew that Pettigrew had a connection with > the Potters and who could put two and two together. Snape's spying duties > after Voldemort's fall must have been rather different (particularly if the > DEs all went their own ways and tried to cover their tracks, rather than > banding together to try and trying to help Voldemort) so that he didn't hear > these rumours. I think it's even more localized than that. I think that before Voldemort's fall, only he and one other highly-placed DE knew about Peter. Voldemort would've wanted the identity of such an important mole kept secret, but he had to have a back-up contact in case Peter had urgent information to report and the big boss was busy. After Voldemort disappears, this back-up DE (Mrs. LeStrange, maybe?) ends up in Azkaban, and bitches to the other inmates about how that little traitor Wormtail ruined everything. So that's how they all know. Snape, never having been in Azkaban, doesn't know. Marina rusalka at ix.netcom.com From bard7696 at aol.com Mon Aug 12 15:05:13 2002 From: bard7696 at aol.com (darrin_burnett) Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 15:05:13 -0000 Subject: DEs knowing about Pettigrew (was re: too many topics to list) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42511 Marina wrote: > > I think it's even more localized than that. I think that before > Voldemort's fall, only he and one other highly-placed DE knew about > Peter. Voldemort would've wanted the identity of such an important > mole kept secret, but he had to have a back-up contact in case Peter > had urgent information to report and the big boss was busy. After > Voldemort disappears, this back-up DE (Mrs. LeStrange, maybe?) ends up > in Azkaban, and bitches to the other inmates about how that little > traitor Wormtail ruined everything. So that's how they all know. > Snape, never having been in Azkaban, doesn't know. > > Marina > rusalka at i.. Right, this sounds perfecty plausible. But it brings up an interesting side point. Was V-Mort so arrogant that he didn't make arrangements for someone to take over in case something happened to him? Even Hitler had a second-in-command ready to step in if one of those assassination attempts had ever worked. The obvious choice would be Lucius Malfoy, but then wouldn't V-Mort be a LOT more annoyed in the graveyard scene, when he sees Malfoy again. "I put YOU in charge, Lucius and then you simper back to the Ministry, begging for forgiveness????" The LeStranges could work, and it would be neat to think of Mrs. LeStrange being the more powerful, trusted and loyal to V-Mort of the two. It would be absolutely delicious to think it would have been Snape, and the choice makes some sense but then we're left with the problem of why didn't V-Mort tell Snape about Wormtail. I love the idea if it can be worked out though, because it just makes Snape's choice to walk away from V-Mort that more powerful. Of course, V-Mort could have been so confident that he didn't make such plans. Darrin -- Doesn't need to make plans if something happens to me, although someone probably should feed the cat. From coriolan_cmc at hotmail.com Mon Aug 12 15:27:39 2002 From: coriolan_cmc at hotmail.com (coriolan_cmc2001) Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 15:27:39 -0000 Subject: The Spider Game (filk) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42512 The Spider Game (to the tune of The Crying Game) Dedicated to Lilac Hear an excerpt at: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B000002US8/103-5532061-4440660 THE SCENE: Gryffindor Common Room, bathed in shadows. Enter, RON, in a somber mein. RON I know all there is to know about the spider game I've had my share of their insider games First there is spinning, then there are webs And then, they try to find out where you are And fear never ebbs One day Fred and George came up and said "Here's what we planned for ya." Then my teddy bear was a tarantula It gave me nightmares, it gave me dread And what did they do, those jokesters two, Just laughed off their heads I know all there is to know about the spider game I`ve let you know who are the guys I blame For they have eight legs and they have hair And then, before you know where they are You're thoroughly scared Don't want no more of the spider game I need a wand with a wider aim... - CMC HARRY POTTER FILKS http://home.att.net/~coriolan/hpfilks.htm From finwitch at yahoo.com Mon Aug 12 07:08:48 2002 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 07:08:48 -0000 Subject: life debt to harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42513 Honeyduke wrote: > I was thinking, if a life debt can be as abstract as to carry on to someone > son when the reciever dies... then couldnt it be as abstarct to include all > the petrified students and ginny in life debt to harry? And Snape was going > to kill Black and lupin in the shack (sort of) so arent they now in debt to > harry??? Well, for a one thing, Lupin saved Harry in the train. So well, I'd say they're even-- though I'm not entirely sure it was Harry who knocked Snape out... Sirius-- well, being the ONE bright thing in Harry's life (particularly in Book#4 when Harry&Ron aren't talking) just might have saved Harry's life from non-Dementor-caused depression... And what comes to all other kids Harry's saved indirectly-- well, we might include nearly all of WW since Harry got rid of Voldemort! But I think it's more personal than that. I also figure that if the debt is unpaid when the reciever dies then whatever the reciever was trying to do (in James' case, fighting Voldemort and keeping Harry safe) becomes a binding duty to the one who's indebted. It might be that Snape tried to repay his debt by warning Dumbledore that night - and felt it when James Potter died. That was perhaps Snape's turning point - before Voldemort's fall. -- Finwitch From finwitch at yahoo.com Mon Aug 12 07:28:12 2002 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 07:28:12 -0000 Subject: The Gryffindor Coat-of-Arms In-Reply-To: <001c01c241a2$71537f00$a37763d1@texas.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42514 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Amanda Geist" wrote: > It could be argued, I suppose, that the House arms are depicted in this way > on the combined Hogwarts coat, and their actual attitudes when depicted > singly are different. But we have no canon to base this on. So I personally > think that the lion faces to sinister to allow it to be a part of an > aesthetically pleasing combination in the Hogwarts arms, and there was no > other deep meaning. I might add that these figures are also not Muggle-- they move! The Gryffindor Lion may well look right at you when it's standing alone in Gryffindor-coat-of-Arms in Gryffindor Tower. The Lion is pictured to be looking at the snake in Hogwarts Crest as the Snake looks at it. As all pictures tend to move - paintings, photos, crests... well, I kind of doubt it means much - except that Slytherin&Gryffindor keep an eye of each other and battle for position as the leading house. (Having house-cup). -- Finwitch From finwitch at yahoo.com Mon Aug 12 07:47:49 2002 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 07:47:49 -0000 Subject: Crackpot Old Fool In-Reply-To: <001901c2418a$5f307a20$279f01d4@john> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42515 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Michelle Apostolides" wrote: > Mike Z said : > > How did > vernon know Dumbledore was old? Michelle replied: > He didn't probably. But it's a saying, Crackpot old fool. At least, that's how I took it........ > > I don't think Vernon knew much more about Dumbledore than Pentunia told him. Vernon did read that *first* letter. (Harry "stealing" a letter addressed to him -- well, that shows quite clearly how things are between him and Dursleys...) Perhaps it included Dumbledore's picture as well as his titles. Of course, Harry never got to see *that* letter - and, Lily had seen Dumbledore at Hogwarts and possibly told Petunia -- who told Vernon after Harry got his letter... -- Finwitch From finwitch at yahoo.com Mon Aug 12 08:24:01 2002 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 08:24:01 -0000 Subject: What is magic? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42516 So-- what do we see of magic in Potterverse? 1) Some can do it and some can not. 2) When it's strong, electric devices stop working. This effect against electricity is perhaps the most nominating. Anyway- magic in Potterverse - how about it being a force like magnetism - except that it works on non-magnetic things like coal (which is an odd element: leads electricity but isn't magnetic?) or perhaps some sort of anti-electricity. Flow of positrons, perhaps... Well, that's how I picture it, anyway... -- Finwitch From primroseburrows at yahoo.com Mon Aug 12 11:22:44 2002 From: primroseburrows at yahoo.com (Primrose Burrows) Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 04:22:44 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] forbidden forest In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020812112244.47020.qmail@web12908.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 42517 Patrick Mahony wrote: The stuff about werewolves, I think, is simply a rumour. Tom Riddle accused Hagrid of raising werewolf pups, but that is highly unlikely, and the fact that werewolves are human most of the time makes it unlikely they would spend all that time in the Forest. What Tom Riddle said about Hagrid is certainly untrue , but I do think it likely that werewolves are sometimes seen in the Forest. The Wolves don't have to stay there once the moon is no longer full and they revert back to being human. Perhaps the Forest is just where some werewolves go when they run, and then when they're done running they go wherever home is for them. There may not be as many as are rumored, but even if one was once spotted, it's a good story to keep the kids away. primrose --------------------------------- Do You Yahoo!? HotJobs, a Yahoo! service - Search Thousands of New Jobs [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From clare.pilotconsult at btinternet.com Mon Aug 12 13:02:25 2002 From: clare.pilotconsult at btinternet.com (Clare Johnson) Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 14:02:25 +0100 Subject: Translations for names References: <1029100297.760.92255.m12@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <00e801c24200$84c918c0$f7c87ad5@e4t0t4> No: HPFGUIDX 42518 Not wanting (as a relatively new member too!) to rain on anyone's parade here, but I have to say that while it is revealing to look at possible French and Latin derivations for names, in my opinion, JKR designed them to give a strong snapshot of the personalities, histories and potentials of their owners without too much study and heaving great reference books from the shelf. There are some gorgeous tie ins to Greek and Roman mythology too I agree but I think this one of the many ways in which JKR keeps the humour topped up. I don't think she meant them to be totally analysable (eg the discussion on Voldemort) by paid-up grammarians. But if that's what does it for you, then rock on! Clareysage - who now sits back and waits for the onslaught from professors with some trepidation; this is probably my last ever post. From msiscusack at yahoo.com Mon Aug 12 14:24:02 2002 From: msiscusack at yahoo.com (Kristin Cusack) Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 07:24:02 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Muggle devices at Hogwarts (WAS: Re: Wizard Photographs.. more thoughts on this =)) In-Reply-To: <013301c2401a$56e571c0$f89ccdd1@istu757> Message-ID: <20020812142402.5046.qmail@web13102.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 42519 --- Richelle Votaw wrote: > > What I'd like to know is why is a Muggle camera > allowed in Hogwarts? He can > bring back proof of the wizard world! I don't quite > understand that, > considering he's bringing them back to show his > Muggle father. > > Richelle > Another thing I'd like to know is gow come a muggle camera works within the Hogwarts grounds...because in GoF, as Hermione (and ANYONE who reaad Hogwarts, a Histroy...jeez!) keep telling Harry and Ron, electronic devices and such do not operate within Hogwarts grounds, like how no one can apparate. When they are trying to figure out how Rita Skeeter is getting her information, Harry and Ron keep suggesting bugging to which Hermione exasperatedly tells them that those electronic devices would be scrambled at Hogwarts. Same as walkie talkies, when they think they see Malfoy usig one on the grounds...so what's the exception with a camera? A mistake? Hmmmmmm :) ~Kristin __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? HotJobs - Search Thousands of New Jobs http://www.hotjobs.com From hunibuni22 at webtv.net Mon Aug 12 15:55:43 2002 From: hunibuni22 at webtv.net (tjbailey24) Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 15:55:43 -0000 Subject: Missing 24hrs/apparating/forbidden forest In-Reply-To: <174.cceff62.2a881969@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42520 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., eloiseherisson at a... wrote: > Tara: > > I have realized one thing that might be of interest or at least something to > > keep in mind. Harry was 15 mo. old the night of his parents demise, which > > means he was far less of a baby that we are assuming. The need for > > *feeding* and such are not as frequent as it would be for an infant. At > > fifteen months, a child can speak (some), walk, definately crawl and eats > > mostly table food, so I imagine the caring of Harry would have been > > relatively simple and of course Hagrid could handle it on his own. > > Personally, I find (sleep-deprivation aside!) that small infants are > infinitely easier to care for than 15 month olds. They stay whereyou put > them, don't put themselves into danger, don't attempt to argue back, eat what > they're given (milk!) etc. > > In addition, the 15 month old is going to be much more distressed by the > situation. A small baby will accept care from anyone. By 15 months, he's > going to want his mum. > The thought of taking a 15 month old child on a flying motorbike is > distinctly frightening. > > (As is the thought of leaving a 15 month old unsupervised on a doorstep at > the beginning of November). > > > > > Also, a question as to "why didn't Lily just take Harry the night Voldemort > > came to destroy them, and apparate" (I'm using my own words, thats not how > > it came out of a post)? Do we know that anyone can apparate *with* another? > > If so, why didn't Arthur Weasley just take Harry and apparate away with him > > from the Dursley's (when they picked him up for the Quidditch world cup > > GoF) instead of sending him back with Floo powder? I don't think we've ever > > seen anyone apparated with another. Please, do correct me if I'm wrong! > > No, you're right and the consensus of the list has been that it seems to be > impossible to apparate with someone else. > > > > > Another thought has crossed my mind as well... we all know thatProfessor > > Lupin is a werewolf and with the exception of his *mindframe* during a full > > moon, is quite likable. What I'm wondering is, aren't there werewolves in > > the forbidden forest as well? I seem to remember either Draco or Ron > > stating in exclamation, (before entering the forest), "..they're werewolves > > in there...". Well, then are we to assume that when there isn't a full > > moon, that there are regular men walking around the forbidden forest? I > > find that hard to believe with all the other monstrous creatures about! > > Also, is there a spell on the boundaries of the forest keeping all the > > creatures inside of it or do they stay within the forrest on their own free > > will? > > It has been suggested that the 'werewolves in the Forbidden Forest' thing > actually started with Remus (in other words, there aren't really werewolves > in there, although Hagrid never says as much). But JKR (or Tom Riddle, at > least) also made an error in suggesting that Hagrid was able to attempt to > rear werewolves under his bed, so I think occasionally the word has been used > a little loosely. > > Eloise > > > Tara writes a reply to her reply: Eloise, I can certainly see your point that an infant may be much easier to take care of than a 15 month old child! However, I'm sure if Hagrid can handle a blast ended skrewt, he can definately handle 15 monthold Harry! You also said that you considered a midnight flying motorcycle ride "distinctly frightening", but we need to think that it may have been common for Harry, after all Sirius WAS his Godfather, perhaps he's rode on the motorcycle before. If we think about it, maybe Hagrid has even cared for Harry before. After all, Hagrid is a good friend of Dumbledore and Dumbledore a good friend of the Potters.... you never know. Certainly Harry cried for his mom, he saw her get AKed and his house blown up. Maybe Hagrid (or another) put a memory charm on him or magically calmed him some other way...perhaps thats why Dumbledore also felt comfortable leaving him on the Dursley's front porch in the middle of the night (the idea of that was a little scary for me, too). These are just ideas, but I wanted to elaborate a little more. > Thanks,Tara > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From eloiseherisson at aol.com Mon Aug 12 16:59:00 2002 From: eloiseherisson at aol.com (eloiseherisson at aol.com) Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 12:59:00 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: DEs knowing about Pettigrew/ Missing 24 hours Message-ID: <89.1c283ba6.2a894354@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 42521 Darrin: > But it brings up an interesting side point. Was V-Mort so arrogant > that he didn't make arrangements for someone to take over in case > something happened to him? Even Hitler had a second-in-command ready > to step in if one of those assassination attempts had ever worked. I don't think Voldemort needs anyone to take over. What does he care what happens in the WW after he is dead? As far as I can see, his philosophy is completely egocentric. He wants power. For himself. He has no offspring, as far as we know, so he is not creating a dynasty. He and his followers may have contempt for those not of pure blood, but his previous campaign doesn't seem to have consisted of trying to win over the pure blood community to his side and then systematically eliminating those deemed not worthy of citizenship in an attempt to forge some master wizard race (although the Malfoys would presumably appreciate that). I believe he is an individual seeking merely personal power, with contempt for *anyone* who stands in his way. ...................................... > Tara: > >> Eloise, I can certainly see your point that an infant may be much easier >> to take care of than a 15 month old child! However, I'm sure if Hagrid >> can handle a blast ended skrewt, he can definately handle 15 monthold >> Harry! You also said that you considered a midnight flying motorcycle >> ride "distinctly frightening", but we need to think that it may have been >> common for Harry, after all Sirius WAS his Godfather, perhaps he's rode on >> the motorcycle before. Sorry, I was ambiguous. I didn't mean that Harry would be frightened, but that the whole concept of flying a motorcycle whilst carrying a 15 month old was frightening. I mean, I wouldn't like to do it! Well, I wouldn't like to fly a motorbike at all, but toddlers are rather wriggly things, you know and Hagrid apparently only had him bundled inside his coat, not in a baby carrier or anything. I mean...what if he'd dropped him or something? I get a bit paranoid about infants and transport. It's a mum thing. I'm not sure that caring for Skrewts is *very* good preparation (although both ends of an infant do carry their own hazards). It gives me a vision of Hagrid wrestling a screaming Harry into a pillow-lined box and trying to put a lid on it in order to get him to go to sleep! As you say, he may have been magically calmed. I think he would need to be. And my point about leaving him on the doorstep was not merely that he might wander off or something, but that he was likely to get hypothermia . Eloise Who realises that she was very unfair to Hagrid before, because he successfully reared Aragog, as well as Norbert. Just not any children we know of. And agrees with Marina's post re DEs knowing about Pettigrew. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From xp39c at yahoo.com Mon Aug 12 17:13:25 2002 From: xp39c at yahoo.com (xp39c) Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 17:13:25 -0000 Subject: Voldemort's Second (was Re: DEs knowing about Pettigrew In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42522 Darrin wrote: > Was V-Mort so arrogant > that he didn't make arrangements for someone to take over in case > something happened to him? Even Hitler had a second-in-command ready > to step in if one of those assassination attempts had ever worked. > > The obvious choice would be Lucius Malfoy, but then wouldn't V-Mort > be a LOT more annoyed in the graveyard scene, when he sees Malfoy > again. "I put YOU in charge, Lucius and then you simper back to the > Ministry, begging for forgiveness????" > > The LeStranges could work, and it would be neat to think of Mrs. > LeStrange being the more powerful, trusted and loyal to V-Mort of the > two. > > It would be absolutely delicious to think it would have been Snape, > and the choice makes some sense but then we're left with the problem > of why didn't V-Mort tell Snape about Wormtail. > > I love the idea if it can be worked out though, because it just makes > Snape's choice to walk away from V-Mort that more powerful. > > Of course, V-Mort could have been so confident that he didn't make > such plans. The difference between Hitler and Voldemort is that Voldemort fully expected to be immortal. Anointing someone as second-in-command, to Voldemort, would seem like a sign of weakness, that he expected himself to fail at his experiments. Alternatively, from the way he operated, he probably didn't trust anyone, even those in his inner circle. He probably thought that most of them were spineless weasels (and they are, as evidenced by most of the DEs claiming Imperious to avoid Azkaban). --Hei Lun From SaalsG at cni-usa.com Mon Aug 12 17:14:56 2002 From: SaalsG at cni-usa.com (Grace Saalsaa) Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 12:14:56 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Muggle devices at Hogwarts (WAS: Re: Wizard Photographs.. more thoughts on this =)) References: <20020812142402.5046.qmail@web13102.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <006d01c24223$c89e2090$054053d1@DJF30D11> No: HPFGUIDX 42523 Kristin asks: Another thing I'd like to know is gow come a muggle camera works within the Hogwarts grounds...because in GoF, as Hermione (and ANYONE who reaad Hogwarts, a Histroy...jeez!) keep telling Harry and Ron, electronic devices and such do not operate within Hogwarts grounds, like how no one can apparate. When they are trying to figure out how Rita Skeeter is getting her information, Harry and Ron keep suggesting bugging to which Hermione exasperatedly tells them that those electronic devices would be scrambled at Hogwarts. Same as walkie talkies, when they think they see Malfoy usig one on the grounds...so what's the exception with a camera? A mistake? Hmmmmmm :) ~Kristin now me: I asked my hubby, the photographer, about a camera working at Hogwarts, and he said: Cameras do not have to be electronic. Even the flash doesn't have to be electronic. Collin could have used a flash bulb instead of an electronic flash. Some camera models, like the Leica have no battery in them at all. And a pinhole camera is nothing more than a light tight box with a tiny hole in it containing a sheet of photographic paper. Grace From ksnidget at aol.com Mon Aug 12 17:17:54 2002 From: ksnidget at aol.com (ksnidget at aol.com) Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 13:17:54 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Muggle devices at Hogwarts (WAS: Re: Wizard Photographs.. more thoughts on this =)) Message-ID: <5A4FF53B.7489D609.007B4FA9@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 42524 Kristin writes: >Another thing I'd like to know is gow come a muggle >camera works within the Hogwarts grounds...because in >GoF, as Hermione (and ANYONE who reaad Hogwarts, a >Histroy...jeez!) keep telling Harry and Ron, >electronic devices and such do not operate within >Hogwarts grounds There are cameras that are strictly mechanical. No batteries or transistors to get fried by the magic field. Now most recent camera's are electronic, but many of the older kind never were at all. If the Creevey's were told that electronic devices don't work they may have pulled out one of the old mechanical ones (that many people have stuffed in a box somewhere) out of the attic, or bought one used. Just because many things these days are electronic, that doesn't mean that there were not mechanical-only versions of them prior to the invention of the transistor. Ksnidget From rvotaw at i-55.com Mon Aug 12 17:10:42 2002 From: rvotaw at i-55.com (rvotaw at i-55.com) Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 12:10:42 -0500 (CDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Translations for names Message-ID: <1482022.1029172242632.JavaMail.root@webmail.i-55.com> No: HPFGUIDX 42525 Clareysage writes: > topped up. I don't think she meant them to be totally analysable (eg the > discussion on Voldemort) by paid-up grammarians. But if that's what does it > for you, then rock on! Oh, I don't know. Lupin's name gives the whole werewolf thing away. Though I don't think JKR really expected people to go into such great detail as far as looking things up in Latin dictionaries, especially when she first came up with this whole thing as an unpublished author. But hey, I've got to do something for fun. :) She'll never get by me that easy again, though! If Book 5 ever comes out next century or so, I'll be looking up every new person's name! Richelle ---------- Not wanting (as a relatively new member too!) to rain on anyone's parade here, but I have to say that while it is revealing to look at possible French and Latin derivations for names, in my opinion, JKR designed them to give a strong snapshot of the personalities, histories and potentials of their owners without too much study and heaving great reference books from the shelf. There are some gorgeous tie ins to Greek and Roman mythology too I agree but I think this one of the many ways in which JKR keeps the humour topped up. I don't think she meant them to be totally analysable (eg the discussion on Voldemort) by paid-up grammarians. But if that's what does it for you, then rock on! Clareysage - who now sits back and waits for the onslaught from professors with some trepidation; this is probably my last ever post. ________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/ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Mon Aug 12 18:42:56 2002 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (bboy_mn) Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 18:42:56 -0000 Subject: forbidden forest (Werewolf Pups) In-Reply-To: <20020812112244.47020.qmail@web12908.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42526 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Primrose Burrows wrote: > > Patrick Mahony wrote: > The stuff about werewolves, I think, is simply a rumour. Tom > Riddle accused Hagrid of raising werewolf pups, but that is > highly unlikely, and the fact that werewolves are human most > of the time makes it unlikely they would spend all that time > in the Forest. > > > > Primrose Replied: > What Tom Riddle said about Hagrid is certainly untrue , but I do think it likely that werewolves are sometimes seen in the Forest. The Wolves don't have to stay there once the moon is no longer full and they revert back to being human. Perhaps the Forest is just where some werewolves go when they run, and then when they're done running they go wherever home is for them. There may not be as many as are rumored, but even if one was once spotted, it's a good story to keep the kids away. > > > > primrose > BBoy_mn Comment: Werewolf Pups- While logically there would seem to be no werewolf pups since you become a werewolf by being bitten by a werewolf, what happens if a werewolf mates with a regular wolf or a werewolf mates with another female werewolf? Certainly, either of those would result in 'werewolf pups', although, for them to remain in a constant state of 'wolf', it would almost have to be wolf/werewolf combination. I suspect the pups of a werewolf/wolf would not be as dangerous as pure werewolves, and certainly pups would not be as dangerous as a full grown adult. I do agree about werewolves and the forest. It is entirely possible that people who are werewolve seek refuge in the forest when the full moon approaches, then go back to their (somewhat) normal lives when they recover. There could even be a colony of werewolves or a werewolf village deep in the forest (or other locations in Europe) where werewolves can live a somewhat normal life. Lupin seems to have survived reasonably well for 30+ years; he seems to be an intelligent and reasonably educated man, so we can assume that while his options were very limited, he did do something productive with his time. bboy_mn From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Mon Aug 12 18:50:34 2002 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (bboy_mn) Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 18:50:34 -0000 Subject: What is magic? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42527 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "finwitch" wrote: > So-- what do we see of magic in Potterverse? > > 1) Some can do it and some can not. > 2) When it's strong, electric devices stop working. > > This effect against electricity is perhaps the most nominating. > > Anyway- magic in Potterverse - how about it being a force like > magnetism - except that it works on non-magnetic things like coal > (which is an odd element: leads electricity but isn't magnetic?) or > perhaps some sort of anti-electricity. Flow of positrons, perhaps... > > Well, that's how I picture it, anyway... > > -- Finwitch Just my opinion, but I think basic electricity probably works. I think a flash light (torch to the British) would work; batteries and a filament bulb. But it's possible that electic light would not work because it's a little more complicated and requires more than the simple flow of electricity; transformers, generators, regulators, etc... Anything beyong basic straight forward electricity, would be so saturated with energy, that it could not perform the more complex functions of electronics. It is possible for standard electronics to be saturated by a simple electrical field or EMF field. Example, static on your radio or TV during a lightning/thunder storm. So any strong force of energy would disrupt the intelligent or structure flow of electrons. bboy_mn From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Mon Aug 12 19:51:38 2002 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (bboy_mn) Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 19:51:38 -0000 Subject: Mars is Bright Tonight In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42528 General Comments on 'Mars is bright tonight'. As someone mention when this subject was discussed before, the British have a way of suddenly talking about the weather whenever the conversation turns to something uncomfortable, even when the sudden change in topic may be nonsequitur or illogical or contrary to reality like 'looks like rain' even when the sky is crystal clear. So, I suggest that 'Mars is bright...' is simply the centaurs way of avoiding a subject in a manner that is typically British. Example: Human Q: So, tell me, is your sister still working in the red light district? A: ....hummmm.... Beautiful weather, maybe we'll have a picnic this weekend. Example: Centaur Q: So, tell me, is your sister still giving pony rides at the circus? A: ...Hummmm..... Mars is bright tonight; unusually bright. To a centaur who is obsessed with astrology, this may simply be a way of saying that the sky is clear tonight with no complex astrological or divination interpretation. It's an indirect statement of the weather, not a direct statement about Mars itself. Just some thoughts. bboy_mn From rsteph1981 at yahoo.com Mon Aug 12 16:29:31 2002 From: rsteph1981 at yahoo.com (Rebecca Stephens) Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 09:29:31 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Missing 25 hours In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020812162932.72209.qmail@web20008.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 42529 Hey, what if, during that missing hour, Hagrid took Harry somewhere to get a spell or charm done? For some reason, Harry needs to be with blood relatives. It keeps him safer. The rest of the wizarding world doesn't seem to know why. Maybe it was a spell put on Harry under Dumbledore's orders. That would explain why he, rather than the minster of magic, decided where Harry would live. Rebecca ===== http://wychlaran.tripod.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? HotJobs - Search Thousands of New Jobs http://www.hotjobs.com From bdmorrp at budget.state.ny.us Mon Aug 12 20:44:55 2002 From: bdmorrp at budget.state.ny.us (erisedstraeh2002) Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 20:44:55 -0000 Subject: JKR's Animagus Would be an Otter (was: St. Godric - Harry Parallels) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42530 In a previous post, I wrote (regarding parallels between St. Godric and Harry): > It was the life of St. Cuthbert which influenced St. > Godric to become religious (I looked up St. Cuthbert and couldn't > find anything that appeared relevant - at least for now. But there > is a Cuthbert Mockridge mentioned in passing in GoF). After writing this, I decided to do a bit more investigating into St. Cuthbert's life, and I think I have now found something that *is* relevant! In an AOL 2000 chat, JKR says "I personally would like to think that I would transform into an otter, which is my favorite animal." Well, one of the legends about St. Cuthbert says that when he went to the beach to pray, sea otters would try to dry his feet with their fur and warm his feet with their breath. After St. Cuthbert blessed them, the otters returned to the sea. A coincidence? Cheers, Phyllis From crussell at arkansas.net Mon Aug 12 21:06:57 2002 From: crussell at arkansas.net (bugaloo37) Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 21:06:57 -0000 Subject: The Marauders Vs. The Trio-who is who? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42531 I know that this has been discussed before- but I would like to bring the topic up again. IMO, the trio (Harry, Ron, and Hermione) can be considered the equivalent of the Marauders ( James, Sirius, and Remus). With Harry, of course, taking the position of his father, James. The argument then can be made about the other two positions mentioned. IMO, I believe that Ron is the equivalent of Sirius. My argument for this is based on their similarities in character- high- tempered-prone to act before thinking, but completely loyal to their friends. IMO, I also believe that Hermione is the equivalent of Remus. My argument for that consists of the intelligence both of these characters possess. Also, they did seem to make a connection to each other on some level in PoA. Hermione and Remus seem to be more logic oriented-but still able to act quickly when called upon to do so. But what about Pettigrew- who is his equivalent? Are we suppose to see Pettigrew as a hanger-on who was subsequently allowed into the Marauders? Who among the Trio's contemporaries can be seen in this light? Neville? (who Hermione champions constantly) Creevy? (who seems to worship Harry). I would like to hear some opinions. Bugaloo37 From bard7696 at aol.com Mon Aug 12 22:31:02 2002 From: bard7696 at aol.com (darrin_burnett) Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 22:31:02 -0000 Subject: The Marauders Vs. The Trio-who is who? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42532 Bugaloo asked: But what about Pettigrew- who is his equivalent? Are we > suppose to see Pettigrew as a hanger-on who was subsequently allowed > into the Marauders? Who among the Trio's contemporaries can be seen > in this light? Neville? (who Hermione champions constantly) Creevy? > (who seems to worship Harry). I would like to hear some opinions. > Bugaloo37 I say Neville, and not just for the obvious physical similarities. McGonagall flat-out said in PoA that Neville reminded her of Pettigrew. Pettigrew played a pivotal role in the events (and still might). His betrayal of the Potters set a lot of things in motion. I believe Neville will have a similar pivotal role. For good or for evil, I have not formulated a guess yet, but I believe the climax of the series will not be able to be written without Neville's involvement. Darrin -- Wondering if there is an Evil!Neville thread out there. -- Wondering if "Exclamation Points Placed in the Middle of Two Words for Some Strange Reason" would work as a band name. -- From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Mon Aug 12 22:36:21 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 22:36:21 -0000 Subject: The Marauders Vs. The Trio-who is who? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42533 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "bugaloo37" wrote: > I know that this has been discussed before- but I would like to bring > the topic up again. IMO, the trio (Harry, Ron, and Hermione) can be > considered the equivalent of the Marauders ( James, Sirius, and > Remus). With Harry, of course, taking the position of his father, > James. The argument then can be made about the other two positions > mentioned. IMO, I believe that Ron is the equivalent of Sirius. My > argument for this is based on their similarities in character- high- > tempered-prone to act before thinking, but completely loyal to their > friends. IMO, I also believe that Hermione is the equivalent of > Remus. My argument for that consists of the intelligence both of > these characters possess. Also, they did seem to make a connection > to each other on some level in PoA. Hermione and Remus seem to be > more logic oriented-but still able to act quickly when called upon to > do so. But what about Pettigrew- who is his equivalent? Are we > suppose to see Pettigrew as a hanger-on who was subsequently allowed > into the Marauders? Who among the Trio's contemporaries can be seen > in this light? Neville? (who Hermione champions constantly) Creevy? > (who seems to worship Harry). I would like to hear some opinions. > Bugaloo37 Well, since it's been some time since I last remember this topic, I don't think it's a bad idea to bring it up again myself. As the saying goes, old ones are the best... Unfortunately, my views in this topic are very negative: I don't really see the similarities between the triad and the marauders. Cheking then one by one: James played, according to JKR, chaser, not seeker, as Harry does, and still is the closest similarity. James was a very good student, while Harry is a "C" student: has some trouble passing his exams and is very indifferent about studying. I don't picture him as someone capable of learning to be an animagi ilegally, not because he lacks the courage, but because he lacks the dedication. True enough he doesn't really need it, but neither did the marauders. Sirius has the same problem when compared to Ron, only even more accentuated. We don't really know what Sirius did in his free time, but he was as good a student as James or even better, and Ron is the sort of student that's always in the brink of disaster. I cannot really compare their respectives temperaments, but I don't think that Ron would play the prank on Malfoy. Hermione is the one that is most close to one of the marauders, if we assume that Lupin learned all he knows about DADA at school (although I believe he went hunting for dark creatures since he couldn't get a regular job, and got a training at the job). Note, however, that Lupin is *not* an animagus, thus, there is no real canon to back-up the "he was a good student" theory. Hermione, on the other hand is *the* student of the triad, but doesn't carry the anguish or the doubts Lupin does. Lupin has been afraid of himself and of loosing control all his life, which just doesn't happen in Hermione's case: she's believes she can solve any problem (normally by checking books at the library). Finally, when you combine the pair James-Sirius, you get a pair very much like "Forge and Greg", more than the pair Harry-Ron, and the circunstances that revolve around the entire marauder group are extremely different from those of the triad: the worst the marauders ever faced was a werewolf, while the triad has faced Voldemort, Basilisks, 100 Dementors, giant spiders, dragons, Voldemort again, etc. which makes a difference right there. Still, as I said, this thread is an old-timer, and I'm looking forward to other people's opinions, since there is *no* "right" interpretation here: either you see similarities or you don't. And strangely, we tend to see different similarities or differences. Hope that helps, Grey Wolf From ra_1013 at yahoo.com Mon Aug 12 22:40:49 2002 From: ra_1013 at yahoo.com (Andrea) Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 15:40:49 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Hagrid's Training/Molly's Real Name In-Reply-To: <004401c2408f$4ca3cf20$68f0f718@kzo.chartermi.net> Message-ID: <20020812224049.55389.qmail@web10902.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 42534 --- yr awen wrote: > According to the dates given in the HP Lexicon, as derived from random > comments in the series, the only way Lucius could have attended Hogwarts > with Arthur is if he was entering his first year at some point after the > re-opening of the Chamber of Secrets by Tom Riddle and Hagrid's > installation as the new Groundskeeper, all of which took place 50 years > ago as of CoS. In CoS, Draco inadvertently tells the disguised Harry and > Ron that the re-opening was before his father went to Hogwarts, and in > GoF, Molly remembers Ogg, the ex-Groundskeeper who Hagrid ended up > replacing. The Chamber opening would have to have taken place before > Lucius' entrance into Hogwarts, but Luciou while Arthur was still there > (maybe Arthur would be in seventh and Lucius in first year, or > something.) I know it's been mentioned before, so I'll just briefly repeat -- Molly mentioning the previous groundskeeper does NOT necessarily mean she was at Hogwarts before Riddle and Hagrid were students. Hagrid was only a third year when he was expelled. I think it would be ridiculous to think he suddenly became the full-fledged groundskeeper immediately upon expulsion. I think his life probably was more along the lines of what Harry imagined for himself when he thought he'd be expelled -- trudging along carrying Ogg's bag, helping him while his friends all graduated, and eventually assuming the full duties as he grew old enough and Ogg retired. --- bboy_mn wrote: >I know I'm not suppose to post really short messages, but I was >wondering if anyone was willing to speculate about Molly's real name? > >If Molly is a nickname, the what poper name is it typically a nickname >for? Molly is a traditional nickname of Mary, which is certainly a good name for the epitome of the "mother" figure in the HP universe! :) However, Molly is also a legitimate name in its own right, so it isn't necessarily short for anything. Andrea ===== "Reality is for people who lack imagination." __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? HotJobs - Search Thousands of New Jobs http://www.hotjobs.com From rusalka at ix.netcom.com Mon Aug 12 22:43:15 2002 From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants) Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 22:43:15 -0000 Subject: FILK: Torturing Muggles in the Dark Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42535 Why, yes, I am in a sick and twisted mood today, why do you ask? Torturing Muggles in the Dark to the tune of "Poisoning Pigeons in the Park" by Tom Lehrer Dedicated to Caius Marcius Scene: Lucius Malfoy is preparing for an evening's entertainment. LUCIUS: Ain't it sweet, ain't it grand, Spreading terror across the land, I think a Dark Revel tonight is the finest way To play. (You don't say?) This one thing makes a fling just right for me, Livens up every Saturday night for me... Every sadistic ploy makes life more of a joy When we're torturing Muggles in the dark. It will be quite a sight at the Manor tonight As we're torturing Muggles in the dark. Those inferior folks will find life quite unlivable When we show them why Crucio is Unforgivable. Oh, we'll all have a blast at this evening's repast As we're torturing Muggles in the dark. We've gained notoriety, and caused much anxiety, In the Wizarding Society with our games. With sickening piety and prissy sobriety They speak of our impiety and call it a shame. But I don't see why someone should boggle At the thought of tormenting a Muggle. So whenever you're bored, come and join the Dark Lord And torture some Muggles in the dark. And maybe we'll gore a Mudblood or four, While we torture some Muggles in the dark We'll tear them apart in a show of devotion, Except for a few Snape can poison with potions, To hex and to curse we're by no means averse, And we won't reimburse the expense of a hearse After torturing Muggles in the dark. Marina rusalka at ix.netcom.com From heidit at netbox.com Mon Aug 12 23:04:14 2002 From: heidit at netbox.com (heidi tandy) Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 16:04:14 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Marauders Vs. The Trio-who is who? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020812230414.41027.qmail@web9506.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 42536 > Bugaloo asked: > > But what about Pettigrew- who is his equivalent? > Are we > > suppose to see Pettigrew as a hanger-on who was > subsequently > allowed > > into the Marauders? Who among the Trio's > contemporaries can be > seen > > in this light? Neville? (who Hermione champions > constantly) > Creevy? > > (who seems to worship Harry). I would like to > hear some opinions. Why not Ginny? She's already subcumbed to Voldemort in Riddle-mode, she's shown that she can capitulate to being sweet-talked and coddled for nefarious purposes, and there are many, especially among certain groups of harry/ginny shippers, who dream of her eventual inclusion in the Harry/Ron/Hermione trio. I think Neville's background will be enough to keep him from helping those who put his parents into the condition they're now in, but I do suspect something nefarious developing in Colin Creevey's character, poor thing. heidi __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? HotJobs - Search Thousands of New Jobs http://www.hotjobs.com From pennylin at swbell.net Tue Aug 13 01:19:48 2002 From: pennylin at swbell.net (Penny Linsenmayer) Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 20:19:48 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Marauders Vs. The Trio-who is who? References: Message-ID: <09f201c24267$84830940$4f5ffea9@cq5hs01> No: HPFGUIDX 42537 Hi -- Ah, the thread that comes up again every few months or so .... Grey Wolf wrote of the comparisons between James & Harry: <<<<<<>>>>>>> I'm afraid I must quibble with this. James & Sirius are both described as "exceptionally bright," which is *not* the same thing as a "very good student." Nope. In fact, many bright individuals are *not* good students in the traditional Hermione-esque mode. Harry is also not necessarily a "C student." Harry does exceptionally well in DADA for example, and while he didn't do well in Potions that one year when he suspects Snape has written down a "zero" for his final exam grade, that's about all we know for sure about his grades. I have the impression that he is an "above-average" student who gets decent grades without putting forth alot of effort. I'd rather imagine he & Ron are both what I would call "B students" rather than "C students." Of course, this is all based on a grading system that is American -- the Brits probably don't have a A, B, C, D and F (failure) grading system. But, in any case, I would put Harry & Ron both in the B range. <<<<>>>> Hmmm...actually, as much a Hermione fan as I am, I must say that I think she does over-compensate due to a lack of self-confidence. So, the parallels between Hermione & Lupin on that level are there, IMO. But, I actually prefer the correlation between Hermione and Sirius myself. Temper parallels with Ron or not, Sirius's most distinguishing trait, IMO, is his steadfast loyalty. The Trio member who has been most loyal to Harry (and to all her friends) is Hermione. I think the Sirius/Ron parallel is too "easy" - it's too surface-level to say "Well, they can both display their temper." So, can Hermione. She is forthright & cutting about Malfoy's dad buying his way onto the Slytherin team, she slapped Malfoy in the face in Hagrid's defense, she walked out of Trelawney's class without a backward glance, and she was pretty steamed about Ron's remarks about her date with Krum. Yes, she can lose her temper too. So, I've always favored the Sirius/Hermione parallel over Lupin/Hermione. Penny [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bard7696 at aol.com Tue Aug 13 01:28:19 2002 From: bard7696 at aol.com (darrin_burnett) Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 01:28:19 -0000 Subject: The Marauders Vs. The Trio-who is who? In-Reply-To: <09f201c24267$84830940$4f5ffea9@cq5hs01> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42538 I think the Sirius/Ron parallel is too "easy" - it's too surface- level to say "Well, they can both display their temper." So, can Hermione. She is forthright & cutting about Malfoy's dad buying his way onto the Slytherin team, she slapped Malfoy in the face in Hagrid's defense, she walked out of Trelawney's class without a backward glance, and she was pretty steamed about Ron's remarks about her date with Krum. Yes, she can lose her temper too. So, I've always favored the Sirius/Hermione parallel over Lupin/Hermione. > > > Penny > What ultimately hampers the paralleling (I made up a word!) of the Trio and the Mauraders is that we know just about nothing about Sirius' past. He's a blank, which means he can fit either Ron or Hermione or may fit neither very well. The most compelling Ron-Sirius parallel for me is the prank Sirius tried to pull on Snape. I really, really do not see that fitting a Hermione parallel. Whereas I can see Ron trying something like this. (Actually, it's something Fred and George would do.) On the other hand, we really don't know how this prank came about. My image of it is of Sirius talking intentionally loud in front of Snape, or a Slytherin he knew would report back to Snape, about the Whomping Willow, but that's just my interpretation. Such subtleties are more Hermione than Ron. In the end, we're left with a default, though. Lupin and Hermione seem more a natural parallel, which leaves Ron and Sirius. Shaky stuff, but there you go. Darrin -- Of course, this parallel thing doesn't have to be exact. From pat_mahony at hotmail.com Tue Aug 13 01:34:28 2002 From: pat_mahony at hotmail.com (Patrick Mahony) Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 01:34:28 +0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: forbidden forest (Werewolf Pups) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42539 bboy_mn wrote: > >I do agree about werewolves and the forest. It is entirely possible >that people who are werewolve seek refuge in the forest when the full >moon approaches, then go back to their (somewhat) normal lives when >they recover. There could even be a colony of werewolves or a werewolf >village deep in the forest (or other locations in Europe) where >werewolves can live a somewhat normal life. > >Lupin seems to have survived reasonably well for 30+ years; he seems >to be an intelligent and reasonably educated man, so we can assume >that while his options were very limited, he did do something >productive with his time. If there were other werewolves in the Forest, why did Dumbledore see to it that Lupin was taken to the Shrieking Shack, rather than somewhere in the forest? Roo _________________________________________________________________ Join the worlds largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com From gandharvika at hotmail.com Mon Aug 12 23:27:52 2002 From: gandharvika at hotmail.com (Gail Bohacek) Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 23:27:52 +0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups.com] Honeydukes(FILK) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42540 HONEYDUKES (A Filk by Gail Bohacek to the tune of "Savoy Truffle" by George Harrison) *Scene: On the Hogwarts Express, Harry's third year at Hogwarts. "Do you know much about Hogsmeade?", asked Hermione keenly. "I've read it's the only entirely non-Muggle settlement in Britain..." "Yeah, I think it is," said Ron in an offhand sort of way, "but that's not why I want to go. I just want to get inside Honeydukes!" "What's that?" said Hermione. "It's a sweetshop,"said Ron, a dreamy look coming over his face, "where they've got *everything*..." RON (singing) Peppermint creams. shaped like a toad Cauldron cakes you can get a'la mode Sugar Quills that you can suck during class And we'll get this all and even more By going to Honeydukes Many Flavored Beans and a nice pumpkin tart I can taste it now, just at the thought Fizzing Whizzbees which you can purchase in mass And we'll get this all and even more By going to Honeydukes HARRY: I hate to break the news to you But my permission form Did not come through RON: We'll find a way to get you there 'Coz you can't miss this place It's way too cool Drooble's Blowing Gum, Exploding Bonbons Cockroach Clusters and Licorice Wands Pepper Imps, it's really a blast And we'll get this all and even more By going to Honeydukes HERMIONE: McGonagall will sign if you ask Or maybe someone else When we get back And don't think about sneaking out Because you've forgotten 'bout Sirius Black RON (ignoring her): Peppermint creams, shaped like a toad Cauldron cakes you can get a'la mode Sugar Quills that you can suck during class And we'll get this all and even more By going to Honeydukes Yes, we'll get this all and even more Just by going to Honeydukes _________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com From Zarleycat at aol.com Tue Aug 13 01:55:20 2002 From: Zarleycat at aol.com (kiricat2001) Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 01:55:20 -0000 Subject: Slightly OT: Thoughts on Apparation In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42541 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "bboy_mn" wrote: > > Honor Among Thieves- > How is anything safe from theft in the magic world? You could just pop > into the local jewlery store, fill your pockets, and pop out. Stores > and shops may have some enchantments, but I would assume that during > business hours, legitimate customers would pop in and out all the > time. As far as peoples homes, it would seem very easy to rob them. > They may have antiapparation enchantments, but that would also stop > you from apparating into and out of your own home. Well, not necessarily. Why couldn't one set up anti-apparation enchantments that keep everyone out except whoever the family in question wants to let in? My enchantments can be set up to keep you out, but my husband/adult children can apparate in. And, since I trust several friends with my life and my jewelry, I can set up the enchantments to allow them in, too, in the same way my Muggle self can hand over a key to the front door. And if I want to make people walk through the door into my shop and not apparate into the back room and steal my stock, my anti- apparation devices can be set up to do that. But, then that makes me think. Can a powerful wizard overcome whatever enchantments a weaker wizard puts on his/her house? Or are there other ways around it? In GOF Sirius tells Harry he's broken into a wizard home to use their fireplace for the 1:00 AM head-in-the- fireplace talk. If, as I've always assumed (sorry I can't quote canon here because I simply don't remember it, if it exists) one needs a wand to apparate, then Sirius had some other way to break into the house. And, if that's the case, what good is an anti- apparation charm if someone can just pick your locks or jimmy your window open? Or was this a trusting wizard family that felt that their neighborhood was a safe one and they didn't need any complicated locking/protective wards? Marianne, queen of the deadbolts From wmginnypowell at msn.com Tue Aug 13 01:18:58 2002 From: wmginnypowell at msn.com (merimom3) Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 01:18:58 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore Animagus?/Wizard Paintings Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42542 I'm not caught up, so I apologize if this is a repeat of anything in the last 100 messages or so. 1. Is Dumbledore an animagus, and if so what form? I agree that he ought to be, and that a bumblebee makes sense from etymology (which is, interestingly enough, only one letter different than entymology, assuming I'm spelling correctly). However, if that were the case, it would have been very easy for JK to slip little hints and foreshadowings in. So-and-so swats at a bee that seems to be very interested in their conversation, someone hears a buzzing nearby but it flies away before they see it, like that. But she didn't. Or at least I don't remember anything like that. Anyone prove me wrong? 2. My theory on why wizard paintings come to differ greatly from the people they originally resembled: not only are they at best only a near copy of the sitter, they've had independent life for who knows how many years. I mean, Hogwarts is a thousand years old; some of the paintings are likely almost that old. So they've learned, over the years, how to move around, mingle with other paintings, simulate life-like activities (drinking chocolate liquers). I imagine, if you are a painting, Hogwarts is just about the best place to be. So many friends, so much to do, interesting people to talk to. Much better than, say, being a portrait in the Malfoy's house. Ginny, off to slog through the onslaught of messages in the vain hope that I'll actually catch up and post a timely reply for once From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Tue Aug 13 02:36:49 2002 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (bboy_mn) Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 02:36:49 -0000 Subject: forbidden forest (Werewolf Pups) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42543 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Patrick Mahony" wrote: > bboy_mn wrote: > > > >I do agree about werewolves and the forest. It is entirely > >possible that people who are werewolve seek refuge in the > >forest when the full moon approaches, then go back to their > >(somewhat) normal lives when they recover. There could even > >be a colony of werewolves or a werewolf village deep in the > >forest (or other locations in Europe) where werewolves can > >live a somewhat normal life. > > > >Lupin seems to have survived reasonably well for 30+ years; > >he seems to be an intelligent and reasonably educated man, > >so we can assume that while his options were very limited, > >he did do something productive with his time. Roo QUestioned: > > If there were other werewolves in the Forest, why did > Dumbledore see to it that Lupin was taken to the Shrieking > Shack, rather than somewhere in the forest? > > Roo > bboy_mn Responds: Because the werewolves in the forest are older experienced werewolves who have gone DEEP into a VAST forest to seek refuge since they have no other source of refuge. Lupin on the other hand is a 12 year old school boy, and while he is at school, Dumbledore has some obligation to take care of him, and for the safety of Lupin and the other students, needs to keep Lupin in a CLOSE controlled secure environment. Does that cover it? bboy_mn From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Tue Aug 13 02:51:52 2002 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (bboy_mn) Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 02:51:52 -0000 Subject: Slightly OT: Thoughts on Apparation In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42544 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "kiricat2001" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "bboy_mn" wrote: BBOY_MN Originally said: > > > > Honor Among Thieves- > > How is anything safe from theft in the magic world? You > > could just pop into the local jewlery store, fill your pockets, > > and pop out. Stores and shops may have some enchantments, > > but I would assume that during business hours, legitimate > > customers would pop in and out all the time. As far as peoples > > homes, it would seem very easy to rob them. They may have > > antiapparation enchantments, but that would also stop > > you from apparating into and out of your own home. Marianne, queen of the deadbolts Replied: > > Well, not necessarily. Why couldn't one set up anti-apparation > enchantments that keep everyone out except whoever the family in > question wants to let in? My enchantments can be set up to keep you > out, but my husband/adult children can apparate in. And, since I > trust several friends with my life and my jewelry, I can set up the > enchantments to allow them in, too, in the same way my Muggle self > can hand over a key to the front door. > > And if I want to make people walk through the door into my shop and > not apparate into the back room and steal my stock, my anti- > apparation devices can be set up to do that. > > But, then that makes me think. Can a powerful wizard overcome > whatever enchantments a weaker wizard puts on his/her house? Or are > there other ways around it? In GOF Sirius tells Harry he's broken > into a wizard home to use their fireplace for the 1:00 AM > head-in-the-fireplace talk. If, as I've always assumed (sorry I > can't quote canon here because I simply don't remember it, if it > exists) one needs a wand to apparate, then Sirius had some other > way to break into the house. And, if that's the case, what good > is an anti-apparation charm if someone can just pick your locks > or jimmy your window open? Or was this a trusting wizard family > that felt that their neighborhood was a safe one and they didn't > need any complicated locking/protective wards? > > Marianne, queen of the deadbolts To Which bboy_mn replies: Selective anti-apparation- True there could be selective anti-appparation charms but I don't think we've seen any examples of charms that are that selelctive. But then we are dealing with magic, so anything is possible. While you don't come right out and say it, you seem to assume and intelligent anti-apparation charm, more like a clarvoiant charm, one that can read your mind and tell who you will and will not allow in at any given time. Sirius, general security, and the break-in- It's possible that Sirius literally broke into this place the same way you break into a muggle house. You think you person real-life home is secure, but I'm hear to tell you that the security of your home is as fragile as glass. With all you steel doors, security lights/systems, etc..., anyone ANYONE can get into your home simply by breaking a window. Think about that just before you go to sleep tonight. Unless you have steel bars on the windows, live above the fifth floor with no external access, or you have bulletproof glass on the windows, the only thing that keeps people out of your house is that most people are basically good people. But no amount of security stops a true thief or other evil-doer. Picking the locks, jimmying the windows, and breaking the doors/windows takes time and allows you to be seen and makes noise. Apparation on the other hand is silent, unseen, and generally safe and secure for the crook. Anti-apparate charms- I'm sure people use them and other enchantments to keep their house safe, but it seems to me to be a complex task with a lot of little problems that have to be solved. Similar to the solutions you suggested which are certainly not easy charms. bboy_mn From rvotaw at i-55.com Tue Aug 13 03:04:31 2002 From: rvotaw at i-55.com (Richelle Votaw) Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 22:04:31 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Dumbledore Animagus? References: Message-ID: <002301c24276$25f3bd20$609fcdd1@istu757> No: HPFGUIDX 42545 Ginny writes: > I'm not caught up, so I apologize if this is a repeat of anything in > the last 100 messages or so. > > 1. Is Dumbledore an animagus, and if so what form? I agree that he > ought to be, and that a bumblebee makes sense from etymology (which > is, interestingly enough, only one letter different than entymology, > assuming I'm spelling correctly). However, if that were the case, > it would have been very easy for JK to slip little hints and > foreshadowings in. So-and-so swats at a bee that seems to be very > interested in their conversation, someone hears a buzzing nearby but > it flies away before they see it, like that. But she didn't. Or at > least I don't remember anything like that. Anyone prove me wrong? I can't think of any bees or buzzing, however, there is the statement Dumbledore made to Harry at the Mirror of Erised. "I don't need a cloak to become invisible." Did he mean literally invisible? I don't know that there's any canon to support that a wizard can be invisible without assitance of a cloak or some such thing. So perhaps he didn't mean literally invisible? In a castle the size of Hogwarts, a bumblebee flying high overhead would not be noticed. Especially in a room with the Mirror of Erised and Harry's attention focused on that. There's also the fact that Harry thought he "must have walked straight past him [Dumbledore], so desperate to get to the mirror he hadn't noticed him." Or perhaps he was in Bumblebee form, much easier to miss than a full grown wizard like Dumbledore! He could've been waiting as a bumblebee and transfigured after Harry walked by him. I've always found it a little odd that Harry would completely not notice Dumbledore sitting on a desk, no matter how desperate he was to get to the mirror. Richelle From gohana_chan02 at lycos.com Tue Aug 13 03:19:36 2002 From: gohana_chan02 at lycos.com (Hana) Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 23:19:36 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: the Weasley Ages Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42546 Penny wrote: >>Yes, it does. However, I think my example shows that Ginny was, *at most,* only one-year old when Bill left for Hogwarts. I actually believe that he is older (26/27 at the time of GoF), which means Ginny wasn't even born when Bill left for Hogwarts. I do think it's possible that she remembers him leaving for Hogwarts at some later year in his time there & her statement is just strangely-worded (it implies that she remembers him *first* going off to Hogwarts, which couldn't possibly be right under almost any scenario, given even the most compressed view of their age difference). But, I don't think she could remember him first leaving for Hogwarts at all, since I don't think she was even born yet.<< I think that in the end we've been saying the same thing, except that I think that Bill was 27/28 (or older -- I personally like older because it would put him closer in age to MWPP,L,S et al, but that's personal preference rather than canon ;)) in GoF not 26/27 -- I put Charlie at 26/27 instead. I can't remember where the exact quotation is, but I do agree that if Ginny's supposed to remember Bill's ~first~ year, it's impossible. ~Percy~ probably wouldn't remember since ~he~ would have only been 1 -- the twins wouldn't be born for another year, Ron for three, and Ginny for four. The only Weasley kid to really remember Bill's ~first~ year would be Charlie. Ginny would only be able to remember (or have been old enough to react to Bill leaving) for his last 2-3 years. If Bill is ~older~ than 27/28 then Ginny may not have been born when he finished seventh year. As for the accuracy of the Lexicon timeline -- I know it's not perfect and won't be unless JKR starts mentioning more ages and dates, but it seems to be the most comprehensive timeline out there and the most reliable since Steve only puts information that can be backed up with canon. If I'm going to be speculating about things like ages, I'd much rather have something like that as a reference then to try and come up with my own timeline that may or may not be faulty. --- --Hana __________________________________________________________ Outgrown your current e-mail service? Get a 25MB Inbox, POP3 Access, No Ads and No Taglines with LYCOS MAIL PLUS. http://login.mail.lycos.com/brandPage.shtml?pageId=plus From rvotaw at i-55.com Tue Aug 13 04:14:23 2002 From: rvotaw at i-55.com (Richelle Votaw) Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 23:14:23 -0500 Subject: McGonagall / Riddle at Hogwarts Message-ID: <001801c2427f$e94fdc00$dda0cdd1@istu757> No: HPFGUIDX 42547 I'm trying to get a few things straight in my mind here. JKR has said McGonagall is about 70. Which puts her starting at Hogwarts approximately 59 years ago. I'm assuming this is 59 years before SS/PS. Correct me if I'm wrong, please! Anyway, Tom Riddle was a 16 year old at Hogwarts 50 years before COS, right? Which was his 6th year I'm assuming? If it's in there precisely, I've forgotten. (sorry!) If my calculations are correct they McGonagall would've been at Hogwarts at least 3 years with Tom Riddle. If, in fact, her age of 70 was from GoF (which was just released at the time of the interview in which JKR said McGonagall was about 70) they'd have been at Hogwarts together almost the entire time. However, according to the Lexicon McGonagall would've attended Hogwarts from 1931 through 1938. And it says Riddle started in 1938. Which would've put them at Hogwarts only one year, and first years have little interaction with seventh years, especially of a different house. Still, she's bound to have some memory of him and for some reason I find that interesting. I know, I find interest in odd things. :) Richelle P.S. I hit the Harry Potter jackpot today--found some of the Enesco collectibles (cookie jars, book ends, etc.) at a closeout store. Also HP notebooks, binders, etc. I'm a very happy person. :) ------------------------------------ Richelle R. Votaw 1st grade teacher Kentwood Elementary ------------------------------------ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From eloiseherisson at aol.com Tue Aug 13 06:46:42 2002 From: eloiseherisson at aol.com (eloiseherisson at aol.com) Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 02:46:42 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Dumbledore Animagus? Message-ID: <10d.164deca6.2a8a0552@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 42548 Richelle: > I can't think of any bees or buzzing, however, there is the statement > Dumbledore made to Harry at the Mirror of Erised. "I don't need a cloak to > become invisible." Did he mean literally invisible? I don't know that > there's any canon to support that a wizard can be invisible without > assitance of a cloak or some such thing. So perhaps he didn't mean > literally invisible? In a castle the size of Hogwarts, a bumblebee flying > high overhead would not be noticed. Especially in a room with the Mirror > of > Erised and Harry's attention focused on that. There's also the fact that > Harry thought he "must have walked straight past him [Dumbledore], so > desperate to get to the mirror he hadn't noticed him." Or perhaps he was > in Bumblebee form, much easier to miss than a full grown wizard like > Dumbledore! He could've been waiting as a bumblebee and transfigured after > Harry walked by him. I've always found it a little odd that Harry would > completely not notice Dumbledore sitting on a desk, no matter how desperate > he was to get to the mirror. Have you read Philip Pullman's _His Dark Materials_ trilogy? His witches can make themselves invisible through concentrating very hard on an attitude of mind that makes them blend into the background and become unnoticable. They don't become *physically* invisible, it's just that no-one can see them. (Will, one of the central human characters of the book likens it to the survival technique he's learned of drawing no attention to himself.) I wonder if Dumbledore uses a similar technique. Either that, or he is such a powerful wizard that he can literally become invisible at will. This doesn't seem a very big step from an animagus transformation, which is pretty huge in itself. Eloise Who finds she spends much of her life invisible (and inaudible) with no effort whatsoever. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Arcum_Dagsson at celticwind.zzn.com Tue Aug 13 07:05:16 2002 From: Arcum_Dagsson at celticwind.zzn.com (arcum42) Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 07:05:16 -0000 Subject: More thoughts on Draco Malfoy (was Re: Draco Malfoy) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42549 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "fyredriftwood" wrote: > Now that we have the "name" down, I think we should go into more > *detail* regarding everybody's favorite bad boy, since he deserves > a FAQ on the Lexicon site =) > > What do we know about Draco Malfoy? > 1. Slytherin, arch-rival of Harry Potter > 2. Father is a Death Eater, rumored to be part of the Dark Arts > assoc. as well. > 3. Friends include Pansy, Goyle, Crabbe... favored by Professor Snape. > Crabbe & Goyle seem more along the line of minions then friends, (though, since they haven't had a single line of dialogue yet, we can't really say...), and while Pansy simpers around Draco and went went with him to the ball, I'd peg her as more of a girlfriend or follower then a friend. I'm not really sure if he has friends, as such... > > My theories: > 1. Draco has some sort of unhealthy obsession with Harry Potter.. > whether it be either stalker-like or just an out of hatred. Draco > pops out of no where just to insult Harry, then runs away. He has > shown concern for Harry a few times (Ie: PoA when Harry gets a new > broom and Draco asks Harry if he can think he can handle a broom > with so many features) I think a lot of it springs from Quittitch, really. Draco originally tries to make friends with Harry, then sees him hanging out with what he thinks of as Muggles & Muggle-lovers, then the thing that pushes him over the edge was Harry proving to be a natural Seeker, and upstaging Malfoy when Draco has already been bragging about what a good player he is. I wouldn't really call it stalking, though, more upstaging and rivalry, really... > 2. Lucius to me seems like a caring father who would want nothing > more than for his son to be the best he can be. He is NOT abusive > as played up in the fandom, but rather is tough on him... he > desires for his son to be the very best in his class, and is > insulted that a Mudblood is better academically than his own son, > who is a pureblood. Well, Lucius does strike me as the type of father that always expects the best out of Draco, but I'm not sure about caring. While there isn't much canon on either side, I can't really picture Lucius Malfoy telling Draco that he loves him, is proud of him, etc. Draco's behavior seems consistant with someone who is constantly seeking his fathers approval. As far as abuse, there isn't any real evidence for or against physical abuse. Mental and emotional abuse seems a lot more likely in this case to me. Of course, part of my feeling that way is simply that I tend to see Draco and the Malfoys as sort of the reverse image of Harry and the Dursleys. And, of course, overanalysis, especially or relationships, is a family trait I've inherited... :) > 3. How did the Malfoys obtain such a huge fortune/sum of money? > > This money has caused Lucius to not work in both books 3 and 4. > Inherited it? Stole it from all the Muggles and Muggleborns they've tortured and killed over the years? Blackmail and unethical business practices? Pawn shops, drugs, loan sharks, and brothels? Microsoft stock? We really don't have any canon on that other then that they are an old wizarding family. For all we know, they could own a major broomstick manufacturing company... --Arcum From pat_mahony at hotmail.com Tue Aug 13 08:26:08 2002 From: pat_mahony at hotmail.com (kangasboy) Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 08:26:08 -0000 Subject: Animagi, Hedwig and Forbidden Forest In-Reply-To: <10d.164deca6.2a8a0552@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42550 Logically speaking, it is quite likely that Dumbledore is an animagus; teaching transfiguartion, etc. If so, then what form? Various posters, Ginny and Richelle being the most recent, have suggested that, given Dumbledore's etymology, this form could be a bumblebee. One of the strengths of this theory, if it turns out to be true, is that it would be a wonderful irony; most powerfl wizard becomes seemingly powerless creature. Another theory floating around is that Fawkes is Dumbledore's animagus form, and Dumbledore is using a time turner whenever he appears in the same room. This could work, and provides a literal explanation for Dumbledore's comments about never truly leaving the school. Unfortunately, the issue of time travel makes it a very messy theory, and I don't think this is likely (although I'm sure JKR would be able to make it otherwise). Another possibility is Hedwig. I think an owl is a good animagus form for someone as wise as Dumbledore, plus there is at least a physical resemblance in the colouring. However, there is the issue of Hedwig being female, but it is quite reasonable to suggest that Harry has no idea how to distinguish genders in owls. I think that Hedwig is an animagus, but I actually think that Hedwig is in fact Madame Hooch. When Hagrid bought Hedwig, Harry wasn't with him, plus Hooch clears up gender problems. There is also the point of Madame Hooch's yellow, hawk-like eyes, and I think this is the strongest evidence to suggest that she is Hedwig. Now I realise that there is a problem with the list of unregistered animagi, and I think it highly unlikely that we'd have another unregistered animagus. However, there are a number of ways around this: What if Madame Hooch is married, and registered before she got married? We are unaware of her first name, plus JKR in an interview (I forget which), refused to answer a question concerning the marital status of the Hogwarts teacher. Plus she is a 'Madame", which if I remember my French properly, which is the equivalent of "Mrs". On a completely different topic, bboy_mn wrote: "the werewolves in the forest are older experienced werewolves. . .Lupin on the other hand is a 12 year old schoolboy. . . Does that cover it?" I suppose so, but I still don't fully believe that there are werewolves in the Forest. . . The whole concept of the forest as has been presented to us seems far too much of a cliche, for Rowling's standards. . . No, I think there is something much more important to do with the forest, other than a plot device. Roo From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Tue Aug 13 08:51:27 2002 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (bboy_mn) Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 08:51:27 -0000 Subject: Animagi, Hedwig and Forbidden Forest In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42551 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "kangasboy" wrote: Roo Replies: > On a completely different topic, bboy_mn wrote: > "the werewolves in the forest are older experienced werewolves. > . .Lupin on the other hand is a 12 year old schoolboy. . . > Does that cover it?" > > I suppose so, but I still don't fully believe that there are > werewolves in the Forest. . . The whole concept of the forest as > has been presented to us seems far too much of a cliche, for > Rowling's standards. . . No, I think there is something much > more important to do with the forest, other than a plot device. > > Roo bboy_mn responds: Then were are the werewolves if not in the forest. Werewolves are feared and they can be killed and they are not well like, so if I was a werewolf, I would prefer to live in the forest, rather than die in the streets of London. The Forbidden Forest is in a magical geography of it's own just like Diagon Alley exist in a separate magical reality. Just as we don't have to account for the space of Diagon Alley within the normal boundaries of London, we do not have to account for the size of the forest within the normal boudaries of Scotland. My vision of the forest is that it is HUGE, REALLY HUGE; it has to be huge in order to be a wildlife sanctuary for all those animals. I mean a gaint three headed dog needs a lot of space to roam. So I think, if you got on a broom and started flying over the Forbidden Forest you would discover that it goes on for a hundred miles or more in every direct (well, at least 3 directions). In a magical forest that vast, given that there are centaurs, hyppogryphs, unicorn, a colony of giant spiders, and who know what all else, it doesn't seem that unlikely that a few werewolves would take refuge there. I agree, that the magic forest is much more than we have been lead to believe so far, and we will see this greater aspect of it in future books. Of course, I can't actually prove that there are werewolves in there, and in the story it is presented as a rumor, and never really confirmed or denied by anyone. So we'll have to wait and see. bboy_mn From elfundeb at comcast.net Mon Aug 12 21:58:31 2002 From: elfundeb at comcast.net (elfundeb) Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 17:58:31 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Marauders Vs. The Trio-who is who? References: Message-ID: <000f01c2424b$65c6c120$3a3b3244@arlngt01.va.comcast.net> No: HPFGUIDX 42552 Stepping gingerly into the generational parallel minefield . . . . The text of HP virtually begs the reader to look for parallels between the current generation at Hogwarts and the MWPP generation; this discussion has recurred several times just since I've been on the list. But the fact that each time various posters offer up inconsistent parallels is, I think, significant. Recently, I've become more aware -- and disturbingly so -- of two generational parallels not involving the Trio. One is the parallel between Snape and Draco Malfoy, as exemplified by Draco's attempts (especially in PS/SS) to get Harry (and the Trio) in trouble while himself maintaining a rule-abiding aura; this fits very neatly with Sirius' remark about Snape and the Prank ("It served him right. . . . Sneaking around, trying to find out what we were up to . . . hoping he could get us expelled.") In fact, any attempt I make to frame a Snape backstory is informed primarily by the Draco-Lucius relationship. The other parallel is the one between Neville and Pettigrew. Despite my desire to discount the parallel on the basis that the textual references make it too obvious (especially Harry's visions in PoA ch. 11 where Pettigrew resembles Neville), the parallels force their way out into the open. Both are widely believed to be weak wizards (McGonagall remarks at the Three Broomsticks that Pettigrew was "not in [the Marauders'] class", but Pettigrew demonstrates more than adequate power in GoF, and in the framing of Sirius. Likewise, Neville is portrayed as a near-Squib, but his latent powers are apparent with each ruined cauldron. The reason I find the parallels disturbing is that the theme of choices (which echoes my own free-will philosophy), would be undercut if each character in the younger generation merely repeated the mistakes of his older counterpart. Fortunately, most of the parallels we have seen are incomplete. For example, I see a parallel between Neville and Lupin as well as one between Neville and Pettigrew. Both Neville and Lupin are followers rather than leaders. For Lupin, I think the friendship of the other Marauders was so important that he was willing to overlook the dangers of their activities; also McGonagall states in PoA, at the Three Broomsticks, that James and Sirius were the leaders. And Neville is often seen doing things (e.g., attacking Malfoy, trying to stop the Trio from going after the Stone) because he has been told that's how he should behave. In addition, both Lupin and Neville are concealing secrets, Lupin about his condition and Neville about his family. For another example, take James & Sirius, on the one hand, and Harry & Ron on the other. There are some obvious similarities. But it is not a complete parallel. As has been pointed out already, in their penchant for mischief, James and Sirius far more resemble Fred & George than they do Harry & Ron. They have never, after four years, shown interest in practical jokes, or lifting food from the kitchens, except for undernourished Sirius, and only after Hermione, of all people, showed them how to get in (note that Dumbledore tells Harry at the end of PS/SS that James used the Invisibility Cloak mostly for stealing food from the kitchens). I could add more. But I think my point is this: If you look for a parallel, expecting to find it, you surely will. But I might find different ones, equally appealing in their own ways. As Darrin said, "this parallel thing doesn't have to be exact." And therefore, fascinating as it is to look for the parallels, because there may be multiple parallels for a particular character, we should be wary of using a parallel as a predictor of a character's future actions. Draco is still redeemable; Neville isn't necessarily a traitor. Because if that's how the series turned out, I would feel very cheated. Debbie who is herself an inexact parallel to several characters [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From fiatincantatum at attbi.com Tue Aug 13 11:13:00 2002 From: fiatincantatum at attbi.com (Fiat Incantatum) Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 07:13:00 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: forbidden forest (Werewolf Pups) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <3D58B17C.21456.523BBFD@localhost> No: HPFGUIDX 42553 On 13 Aug 2002 at 1:34, Patrick Mahony wrote: > If there were other werewolves in the Forest, why did Dumbledore see to it that > Lupin was taken to the Shrieking Shack, rather than somewhere in the forest? > Because Lupin is a Hogwarts student and a minor and is therefore due a bit more in the way of protection/supervision from the staff than the average non-student werewolf. Perhaps the talk of werewolves in the Forest was started deliberately to keep people away from the area on the nights of the full moon, just in case Lupin managed to get out of the Shack. It wouldn't take much, just send Hagrid down to the village for a few pints armed with a few "Seen a werewolf t'other day" stories. -- 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 skosmoskijr at yahoo.com Tue Aug 13 11:43:11 2002 From: skosmoskijr at yahoo.com (Stan Kosmoski) Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 04:43:11 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Alternate printings In-Reply-To: <1029184166.18523.51812.m12@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <20020813114311.34151.qmail@web11608.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 42554 I have been sharing some of the discussions in the group with HP fans at work, and got into a conflict with the order of spells that emerged from Voldemort's wand in GOF. It seems one of my friends has a copy of GOF that has Harry's mother emerging first and his father following her. I have seen the book, and the page number is the same but the text replaces all "father" and male pronouns with "mother" and female. The roles are completely reversed, and it is not just a one word mistake. Has anyone else seen this in their copies? This is a US hardcover edition. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? HotJobs - Search Thousands of New Jobs http://www.hotjobs.com From msn.tsf at hccnet.nl Tue Aug 13 09:23:58 2002 From: msn.tsf at hccnet.nl (Yoris) Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 11:23:58 +0200 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Slightly OT: Thoughts on Apparation/Gringrotts Security References: Message-ID: <005b01c242ab$278ba820$9600000a@newpc> No: HPFGUIDX 42555 Just a small note on selective charms bboy said: > True there could be selective anti-appparation charms but I don't > think we've seen any examples of charms that are that selelctive. But > then we are dealing with magic, so anything is possible. What about the enchantment dumbledore set onto the GoF, that only let people through above a certain age. What about the magic book of eleven year olds, it even selects on two thingies: the kids must have become eleven AND the kids must be wizzards. Gingrotts Security On the end of PoA Sirius writes in a letter to harry, he tells him "i used your name but told them to take the gold from Gringotts vault number seven hundred and eleven - my own." How could Sirius use Harry's name to acces his own vault? because for the people in the bank it would seem like Harry asking money from SOMEONE ELSES account, and why would they grant such a request? Sure there is thing about the keys but what if a key would got stolen? i hope those keys aren't the only protection, you saw how easily sirius could break in into an house and what if he would have token the key of the people living there on his way? Also he didn't really go to gringrotts he only send an owl, and would he send his key - being the ONLY claim on all his money- with it? I think not, if he would have lost that key he would lose ALL of his money, and he didnt have a reliabel owl too. Well it seems to me that Gringrotts security is REALLY sucky and then i'm asking myself how come noone ever abused it Yoris -- wishes to be a wizzard-fraud From msn.tsf at hccnet.nl Tue Aug 13 09:40:01 2002 From: msn.tsf at hccnet.nl (Yoris) Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 11:40:01 +0200 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Animagi, Hedwig and Forbidden Forest References: Message-ID: <006b01c242ad$656839e0$9600000a@newpc> No: HPFGUIDX 42556 Roo posted: a lot of discussion regarding dumbledore/madame hooch being some animal in the story Well most evidence of dumbledore being an animagus is directed from the fact of him being an transfiguration-teacher, but to be able to use his animaging for the job he would have NEED to be a registered animagus, and he isn't because otherwise hermione would have noticed... IF he was using his animagus form in his lessons being not registered he would be arrested in 2 seconds, people like draco or whatever other slytherin would have told their daddies & the ministry immeadiathly. Also I think dumbledore is a lot like LOTR's gandalf: only to give advise and protect, not taking matters into their own hand, not searching for confrontations themselves So I think there is no reason for him to be an animagus any more then whoever else in the WW. Yoris From pennylin at swbell.net Tue Aug 13 11:59:54 2002 From: pennylin at swbell.net (Penny Linsenmayer) Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 06:59:54 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Alternate printings References: <20020813114311.34151.qmail@web11608.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <003a01c242c0$efe5e410$4f5ffea9@cq5hs01> No: HPFGUIDX 42557 Hi -- Stan asked: <<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/files/Admin%20Files/VFAQ.html In the above link to our Very Frequently Asked Questions document, you can view images of the original text in the UK and US versions and the altered text (yes, it was a mistake, and you can probably find links to news articles about this from Jan 2001). There's also a link to the group's discussions on this topic as included in the Mysteries FAQ. Penny [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Tue Aug 13 12:22:45 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 12:22:45 -0000 Subject: Animagi/VFAQ In-Reply-To: <006b01c242ad$656839e0$9600000a@newpc> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42558 Yoris wrote: > Well most evidence of dumbledore being an animagus is directed from > the fact of him being an transfiguration-teacher, but to be able to > use his animaging for the job he would have NEED to be a registered > animagus, and he isn't because otherwise hermione would have > noticed... IF he was using his animagus form in his lessons being not > registered he would be arrested in 2 seconds, people like draco or > whatever other slytherin would have told their daddies & the ministry > immeadiathly. Hermione only checked the list of animagi resgistered in the last century. Considering the fact that Dumbledore is 150 years old, he could have becomed an animagi when he was 30 and would NOT appear on the list Hermione checked. > Also I think dumbledore is a lot like LOTR's gandalf: only to give > advise and protect, not taking matters into their own hand, not > searching for confrontations themselves > > So I think there is no reason for him to be an animagus any more then > whoever else in the WW. > > Yoris Dumbledore has already taken a hand in the matters, by arranging the old gang to reunite. And, like Gandalf, I believe that he *will* take part in the festivities, and has already. He might not lead a charge like Gandalf does at Helm's Abyss (or Deep, or whatever they're called in Enlgish), but he will be at the forefront of his side, by planning, like a general does. After all, you don't have to be a front-line warrior to "take the matter into your own hands" --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Stan Kosmoski wrote: > I have been sharing some of the discussions in the > group with HP fans at work, and got into a conflict > with the order of spells that emerged from Voldemort's > wand in GOF. It seems one of my friends has a copy of > GOF that has Harry's mother emerging first and his > father following her. I have seen the book, and the > page number is the same but the text replaces all > "father" and male pronouns with "mother" and female. > The roles are completely reversed, and it is not just > a one word mistake. Has anyone else seen this in their > copies? This is a US hardcover edition. At first I though to answer this privately, but I thought other people might not know, either. This is the seond officially recognised FLINT of the books: JKR mixed up the order in which the shadows should come out, and on subsecuent editions it was corrected. Check the Lexicon, http://www.i2k.com/~svderark/lexicon/timeline_potters.html for a good essay on the theme. The short version is: Lily came first. Also, please read the VFAQ file groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/files/Admin%20Files/VFAQ.html before putting forward questions; this one is actually answered there, and the reason the rules are there are to prevent this and other FAQs from cropping up every month or so. Hope that helps, Grey Wolf, who hopes he's not usurping mod powers with this post. From dragonettefish at yahoo.com Tue Aug 13 02:36:33 2002 From: dragonettefish at yahoo.com (dragonettefish) Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 02:36:33 -0000 Subject: Cannons-Missing 24 hours? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42559 Hi! I dont get the chance to read these message boards every day and lately I have been seeing a lot of posts about cannons and a missing 24 hours that I assume was sometime during Molly and James Potters death. I am confused to what exactly cannons mean and why everyone thinks there was a time gap. I was hoping someone could explain all of it to me. Thank You! dragonettefish From dragonettefish at yahoo.com Tue Aug 13 02:41:55 2002 From: dragonettefish at yahoo.com (dragonettefish) Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 02:41:55 -0000 Subject: Latin in Harry Potter Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42560 In one of Rowlings chat sessions she said something to the effect of if you look up names and spells in Harry Potter you may learn something or know more about the characters or something like that. Well, I looked on the internet for places you can translate Latin to English and I found several but you had to know how to seperate roots of words and I dont know how. I was wondering if anyone did or knew a good site for finding out information for that or a good latin site. Thanks! dragonettefish [Mod Note: As replies to dragonettefish's question will likely be off-topic, please send replies off-list unless the make a canon point about the Harry Potter books themselves. Thank you.] From heidit at netbox.com Tue Aug 13 11:52:00 2002 From: heidit at netbox.com (heidit at netbox.com) Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 06:52 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Alternate printings Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42561 You can find versions of both printings in the files section here at hpforgrownups and a search of posts from November, 2000 will give you our contemporaneous accounts of the changeover. Also, at salon.com, if you do a search for *harry potter* you can find their article on the topic. 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: skosmoskijr at yahoo.com, Subject: [HPforGrownups] Alternate printings Real-To: Stan Kosmoski I have been sharing some of the discussions in the group with HP fans at work, and got into a conflict with the order of spells that emerged from Voldemort's wand in GOF. It seems one of my friends has a copy of GOF that has Harry's mother emerging first and his father following her. I have seen the book, and the page number is the same but the text replaces all "father" and male pronouns with "mother" and female. The roles are completely reversed, and it is not just a one word mistake. Has anyone else seen this in their copies? This is a US hardcover edition. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? HotJobs - Search Thousands of New Jobs http://www.hotjobs.com ________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 crana at ntlworld.com Tue Aug 13 13:06:16 2002 From: crana at ntlworld.com (rosie) Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 14:06:16 +0100 Subject: Gringrotts Security References: <005b01c242ab$278ba820$9600000a@newpc> Message-ID: <00db01c242ca$35d0d260$193568d5@xxx> No: HPFGUIDX 42562 Yoris wrote: "On the end of PoA Sirius writes in a letter to harry, he tells him "i used your name but told them to take the gold from Gringotts vault number seven hundred and eleven - my own." How could Sirius use Harry's name to acces his own vault? because for the people in the bank it would seem like Harry asking money from SOMEONE ELSES account, and why would they grant such a request?" I assumed he meant that he used Harry's name as the person ordering it (e.g. on the form he wrote Name:Harry Potter, Address:Hogwarts, Bank Details: Gringotts, Vault 711) or something. Perhaps it works in the same way as ordering things by credit card over the internet or by mail; you have a set of data that works as a "key" for owl order. Rosie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From SaalsG at cni-usa.com Tue Aug 13 13:26:48 2002 From: SaalsG at cni-usa.com (Grace) Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 08:26:48 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Animagi, Hedwig and Forbidden Forest References: <006b01c242ad$656839e0$9600000a@newpc> Message-ID: <012f01c242cd$14439ee0$1b4053d1@SaalsD> No: HPFGUIDX 42563 Yoris wrote: >Also I think dumbledore is a lot like LOTR's gandalf: only to give advise >and protect, not taking matters into their own hand, not searching for >confrontations themselves >So I think there is no reason for him to be an animagus any more then >whoever else in the WW. I don't think he needs to be an animagus either. We already know that lots of owls have been going Dumbledore from the MoM because Fudge sends them daily. Essentially, I get the sense that Dumbledore has his thumb on everything that goes on and when he encounters a situation (like Buckbeak) that he knows - and everyone else knows - is really not his place to be, he defers or works around, problem solving quietly in the background. I really don't thik he has the time to spend 2 months of the summer being Hedwig in order to baby sit Harry. There are far more important things going on in the WW than Harry. CoS, Harry enters Dumbledore's office for the first time. "It was a larger circular room, full of funny little noises. A number of curious silver instruments stood on spindle-legged tables, whirring and emitting little puffs of smoke." I think JKR wanted the reader to assume that Dumbledore has a fascination for gagets. But I suspect that what he really has is a fascination and a need for information. It wouldn't be hard to realize that all these little instruments are information-gathering aids. Grace From mrflynn6 at yahoo.com Tue Aug 13 13:27:51 2002 From: mrflynn6 at yahoo.com (mrflynn6) Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 13:27:51 -0000 Subject: Latin in Harry Potter In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42564 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "dragonettefish" wrote: > In one of Rowlings chat sessions she said something to the effect of > if you look up names and spells in Harry Potter you may learn > something or know more about the characters or something like that. > Well, I looked on the internet for places you can translate Latin to > English and I found several but you had to know how to seperate roots > of words and I dont know how. I was wondering if anyone did or knew > a good site for finding out information for that or a good latin > site. Thanks! > dragonettefish > > [Mod Note: As replies to dragonettefish's question will likely be off-topic, please send replies off-list unless the make a canon point about the Harry Potter books themselves. Thank you.] --------------------------- Ok, I am going to take the chance that this is considered ON-topic and post this. I did a little checking with a latin website-a very little-and found a few interesting, although not earth shattering, translations. Neville= not well known erised (as in mirror of)= master/owner Draco= snake morsmordre (dark mark spell)= painful death I broke Dumbledor down and really didn't get a clear traslation for all parts-dum meaning as long as, while or until--ble meaning many times as great as and dor could either mean give birth to or send to die depending on the prefix. This I found most interesting. Perhaps a latin expert could translate the dum-ble in connection to the dor for us. Gretchen sorry if this is off topic, but I did find this interesting. From rvotaw at i-55.com Tue Aug 13 14:04:36 2002 From: rvotaw at i-55.com (Richelle Votaw) Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 09:04:36 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Latin in Harry Potter References: Message-ID: <00ae01c242d2$5bf455e0$8fa0cdd1@istu757> No: HPFGUIDX 42565 Gretchen writes: > I did a little checking with a latin website-a very little-and found > a few interesting, although not earth shattering, translations. > > Neville= not well known > erised (as in mirror of)= master/owner > Draco= snake > morsmordre (dark mark spell)= painful death > > I broke Dumbledor down and really didn't get a clear traslation for > all parts-dum meaning as long as, while or until--ble meaning many > times as great as and dor could either mean give birth to or send to > die depending on the prefix. This I found most interesting. Perhaps > a latin expert could translate the dum-ble in connection to the dor > for us. Well since JKR has said that Dumbledore is an old English word for bumblebee I don't think it has a Latin translation. However, Albus is the Latin word for white, but can also me "fortunate" or "favorable." erus is the closest I can come to erised, but erised is desire spelled backwards, so I don't know if the connection is deliberate or not. I did find it interesting that I can get a loose translation of Avada Kedavra by substituting a c (which makes the k sound) for the k and breaking it apart into root words. Even though it's supposed to be aramic, the latin comes out to something like "to give in to greed." Which does make sense, because what greater form of greed is there than to take someone's life? And by giving in to the greed, you die. Okay, I'll stop now. :) Richelle From rvotaw at i-55.com Tue Aug 13 14:10:41 2002 From: rvotaw at i-55.com (Richelle Votaw) Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 09:10:41 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] More thoughts on Draco Malfoy (was Re: Draco Malfoy) References: Message-ID: <00bb01c242d3$35b237c0$8fa0cdd1@istu757> No: HPFGUIDX 42566 Arcum writes: > Well, Lucius does strike me as the type of father that always expects > the best out of Draco, but I'm not sure about caring. While there > isn't much canon on either side, I can't really picture Lucius Malfoy > telling Draco that he loves him, is proud of him, etc. Draco's > behavior seems consistant with someone who is constantly seeking his > fathers approval. > > As far as abuse, there isn't any real evidence for or against > physical abuse. Mental and emotional abuse seems a lot more likely in Emotional abuse seems likely. I wonder if Lucius has ever told Draco he loved him? Or even expressed it? You can't show love by buying a broom (or 7) so your kid can get on the Quidditch team. The only time I remember Harry overhearing Lucius and Draco talk was in the floo powder incident where Harry ended up in the wrong alley. There Lucius was constantly putting Draco down, reminding him he had "allowed" a mudblood to score better than him, telling him to stop letting on that he didn't like Harry Potter, since everyone else considered him their savior, etc. Also, Draco seems to be one of those "my father this, my father that" kids. Some kids like that actually do have a father who cares and thus it's natural. Others don't and try to convince themselves that it's them the father cares about and not simply the family name. I think Lucius is much more intent on keeping his name in good standing so to speak than how well his son does. Also, what sort of father goes galavanting around as a death eater with a small child at home? Draco'd have been born during Voldemort's reign, and a baby's enough to calm almost any man down and keep him close to home. Not Lucius, though. Richelle From rvotaw at i-55.com Tue Aug 13 14:12:44 2002 From: rvotaw at i-55.com (Richelle Votaw) Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 09:12:44 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Animagi, Hedwig and Forbidden Forest References: Message-ID: <00cf01c242d3$7f08a1c0$8fa0cdd1@istu757> No: HPFGUIDX 42567 Roo writes: > Another possibility is Hedwig. I think an owl is a good animagus > form for someone as wise as Dumbledore, plus there is at least > a physical resemblance in the colouring. However, there is the > issue of Hedwig being female, but it is quite reasonable to > suggest that Harry has no idea how to distinguish genders in > owls. Hedwig is a possibility, but what about Trevor? Neville said his great uncle gave him Trevor, but did he actually hand him the toad or have it sent? If it was sent, I'd say Trevor is really Neville's great uncle. He does seem the type! Richelle From mdemeran at hotmail.com Tue Aug 13 14:27:35 2002 From: mdemeran at hotmail.com (Meg Demeranville) Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 09:27:35 -0500 Subject: TBAY The Missing 24 hours, the untold story Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42568 The calm waters of Theory Bay beckon as Meg quietly launches her Cal 20 with T.H.E. F.I.R.S.T.-M.E.M.O.R.Y. F.R.I.E.N.D. (Taking Harry Extremely Fast Into Really Secure and Trustable Mother, Embracing Molly who Opts to Receive the Youngster, Friendship Resulting, Interpretates Evanescing, Nuisant Day) written across the stern. Sailing over to the Safe House, she pulls out her shiny brass wolf whistle and blows it just once. A large grey wolf runs from the Safe House, down the wharf and jumps onto the boat. Casting off, she cautiously sails toward the open waters of the bay, occasionally ducking into the cabin to ensure that her can(n)ons are safely stowed. Everyone knows that having can(n)ons on the deck of such a wind-directed vessel would be disastrous. Although her cannons are small, they pack quite a bang. Since her crew is a rather captive audience, she begins explaining her boat to Grey Wolf. "First, you see, there are 24 hours after the Halloween showdown and when Harry is dropped off on the Dursley's doorstep. Where did Harry go? What was Hagrid doing? Obviously, Harry was taken to the Burrow immediately after the house in Godric's Hollow blew up. It was important to get Harry out of the reach of the Ministry (who couldn't necessarily be trusted) and into the hands of someone from "the Old Crowd". That way Dumbledore could decide what to do with Harry and make the necessary arrangements for Privet Drive that night." Grey Wolf nods in agreement and drops a note signed with a large paw print. Meg picks up the note and reads it aloud "For Molly and Arthur to be included in the Old Crowd in GoF, they must have been in the Old Crowd during Voldermort's reign. Snape is trusted specifically because he proved himself during the dark times, it is a logical extension that Molly and Arthur proved themselves during the dark times. After Voldermort's downfall, becoming part of the Old Crowd would be superfluous." "Quite right, Grey Wolf. It also would allow for someone to calm little Harry down." Meg reaches overboard to fish out a floating buoy that Richelle left in the bay. Meg reads Grey Wolf the inscription "I would think that in Harry's situation (parents dead, mum murdered in front of him, big bad guy in robe pointing wand at him, bright light, house falling down, all in a matter of minutes) it would take an experienced caregiver to calm him. With a 15 month old it's not simply a matter of crying himself to sleep. A traumatized 15 month old could easily make himself physically ill in such a situation (and in situations far less traumatic for that matter). Someone with ample experience in caring for babies would be able to calm him much better than, say, a half-giant. Also, come to think of it, Mrs. Weasley did have several small children at home. Baby Ginny, Ron, who must've been about 19 months, a couple of 3 year olds and so on. There would definitely have been someone to get Harry's mind off his problems there. " "So you see, Grey Wolf, I am not the only one out here who believes it. I am not saying that Hagrid is not capable of taking care of a small child, it is only that Molly would have been better equipped to handle such a child." Grey Wolf nods his head in agreement and starts to look around the small ship. Grey Wolf starts to paw at the two can(n)ons on the boat. "Yes, I know, such small ships shouldn't have cannons unless we are pirates. But as I watched the waters of Theory Bay, I learned it's everybody for themselves. There are some dangerous ships floating around the bay, and we can't be too careful." Meg points to her first can(n)on, a map of England gleaming on its side. "You see, Grey Wolf, Hagrid tells us where he was coming from. Now where did I leave that book?" Meg starts looking around the cabin muttering to herself about her organizational skills. Grey Wolf bumps her leg and drops a battered copy of SS at her feet. "Thank you Grey Wolf. Now let me see, here it is." Meg points to the page. "He fell asleep as we was flyin' over Bristol" (p. 15). "See, as Pip and you both explained, the only way to fly over Bristol towards Surrey is to come from the west. Now, where did I put that map? Oh yes, here it is." Pulling out a large map book labeled the Lexicon, Meg flips through the pages till she finds what she was looking for. "Right here, Grey Wolf, Bristol lies between Ottery St. Catchpole and Surrey. You see, this would explain while Harry is so calm when he arrives at Privet Drive and why Hagrid flew over Bristol. He had spent the day being distracted by the Weasleys, was tired from such a day, and consequently was able to fall asleep during the flight. Otherwise, Harry would have still been screaming from the trauma." Grey Wolf drops a note at her feet that reads "What about memory charms?" Frowning, she glares at Grey Wolf. "Yes, I know they have been brought up. But that is simply impossible. Harry remembers the attack. He dreams about the attack on several occasions. If he was under a memory charm, he wouldn't. And I don't think memory charms wear off. I will have to check my Memory Charm symposium notes, but what kind of masochist would put a temporary memory charm on a child that will spend the next ten years of his life in the company of Muggles? Especially since the memories are back, at least partially when he is eleven." Patting Grey Wolf, she reassures him, "I am not mad at you, I know you are just bringing up things you hear on the mainland." Moving over to her second can(n)on, marked with MW, Meg points out that it is a little shakier. "I even had to duct taped it down to prevent it from falling overboard." Noticing Grey Wolf's stares at the MW, Meg explains, "MW stands for Molly Weasley. This can(n)on was built on the reaction of the Weasleys to Harry. The kids seem to be in awe of him while Molly almost immediately assumes a mothering role over him. Grey drops a note in her lap that reads "While Molly may be mothering to all children she runs across, Harry's case is overdone, suggesting that she has taken care of him before." This note is signed with a paw print. "Of course you are right, Grey Wolf, see, it's right here in SS." Meg reaches below deck to grab the battered copy of SS. "See right here: "You've already seen him, Ginny, and the poor boy isn't something you goggle at in the zoo. Is he really, Fred? How do you know? "Asked him. Saw his scar. It's really there - like lightning" "Poor dear - no wonder he was alone, I wondered. He was ever so polite when he asked how to get onto the platform" "Never mind that, do you think he remembers what You-Know-Who looks like?" Their mother suddenly became very stern. "I forbid you to ask him, Fred. No, don't you dare. As though he needs reminding of that on his first day of school." (p. 97) Snapping the book shut, Meg looks over to see Grey Wolf nodding in agreement. "Let's just put your note where it belongs." Meg places this note under the one of the wheels of the MW can(n)on and it stops tilting to the right. "Much better. See, Molly's reaction is much different from the people in the Leaky Cauldron. There, everyone stopped what they were doing to meet the famous Boy who lived. Molly on the other hand seems more concerned with making sure that Harry is not reminded of the trauma he faced as a child. She keeps referring to him as the poor boy as if she remembers a screaming toddler rather than child she met for the first time a few moments before." Scanning the bay, Meg notices a buoy floating in the water. Grabbing her net, she quickly scoops up the offending litter. Inscribed on the buoy are the words Hagrid took Harry to a bar. "Now this simply won't do," says Meg, frowning. "We are talking about time when you didn't know who to trust. The child who had just defeated the dark lord would not have been safe. Any DE could have kidnapped him or worse." Looking down, Meg notices that she has picked the buoy apart and it will clearly no longer float. Meg flings the buoy into the cabin, hearing it hit the wall with a satisfying thud. Regaining her composure, she turns her attention back to Grey Wolf. "Rather," she continues, "Hagrid could have dropped Harry off and then gone on to the nearest pub to drowned his sorrows in a pint or two or six. But before he left, he could have borrowed the fireplace to call and check in with Professor McGonagall. You know, the I won't be at Hogwart's today, official Hogwart's business at all, could you feed Fang, and by the way tell Professor Dumbledore that I rescued Harry from Godric's Hollow and he is safe, we will meet him at 4 Privet Drive, Little Whinging tonight, thanks kind of phone call that would have agitated her enough for her to leave Hogwarts and head to the Dursleys. Besides, it could very well be that the rumors were already flying as the MoM started to investigate the ruins of Godric's Hollow. And besides, Hagrid does not drink when he has a responsibility. He refuses Tom in the pub when he takes Harry to Diagon Alley. He has a drink later when his jobs are done, but until they are completed, he is responsible enough to abstain from drinking. Therefore, I do not think he took Harry, a 15 month old child, to a pub for the day." Retrieving the buoy bits, she waves her wand over them, "Repario". The buoy bits reassemble themselves into a small can(n)on with a large owl on the side. "The owl must be for the rumors that went flying in the 24 hours after Voldermort's downfall." Meg picks up the can(n)on and lugs it to the cabin. "Here, it can guard the head. That's all rumors are good for," Meg says with a giggle. Seeing that her can(n)ons are safely stowed, Meg turns her eyes back to the open Bay. She guides her vessel over to the Safe House and lets Grey Wolf off. "Thank you for a wonderful day Grey Wolf. Maybe one day you will enlist as a permanent part of the crew?" She watches with a sigh as Grey Wolf runs back up to the Safe House. Pushing off from the wharf, Meg guides her boat back to the open waters of the bay to drop anchor for the night. Hearing a wolf's howl, she wishes on the first star of the evening and hopes that just maybe she might find a small crew to help her with her vessel. A Cal 20 is a type of racing sailboat. Small and quick, it is easily maneuvered out of the way of passing Can(n)ons. All references come from SS US Hardback edition. Meg [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From johnryanmcc at yahoo.com Tue Aug 13 13:17:30 2002 From: johnryanmcc at yahoo.com (John McCutcheon) Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 06:17:30 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Slightly OT: Thoughts on Apparation/Gringrotts Security In-Reply-To: <005b01c242ab$278ba820$9600000a@newpc> Message-ID: <20020813131730.68696.qmail@web21110.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 42569 --- Yoris wrote: > > Well it seems to me that Gringrotts security is > REALLY sucky and then i'm > asking myself how come noone ever abused it I have to agree. Look at how the vault was broken into to get the Sorcerer's Stone. Where was the security there? Did they just apparate in there? I thought only the goblins could open the vault doors, otherwise you would get stuck in the doors? I think maybe Hogwarts should open up a bank on their grounds, seems like money would be safer there...lol. John Jo __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? HotJobs - Search Thousands of New Jobs http://www.hotjobs.com From psychic_serpent at yahoo.com Tue Aug 13 16:46:44 2002 From: psychic_serpent at yahoo.com (psychic_serpent) Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 16:46:44 -0000 Subject: The Marauders Vs. The Trio-who is who? In-Reply-To: <000f01c2424b$65c6c120$3a3b3244@arlngt01.va.comcast.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42570 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., elfundeb wrote: > Stepping gingerly into the generational parallel minefield . . . . > > The text of HP virtually begs the reader to look for parallels > between the current generation at Hogwarts and the MWPP > generation; this discussion has recurred several times just since > I've been on the list. But the fact that each time various posters > offer up inconsistent parallels is, I think, significant. > > Recently, I've become more aware -- and disturbingly so -- of two > generational parallels not involving the Trio. One is the > parallel between Snape and Draco Malfoy, as exemplified by Draco's > attempts (especially in PS/SS) to get Harry (and the Trio) in > trouble while himself maintaining a rule-abiding aura; this fits > very neatly with Sirius' remark about Snape and the Prank ("It > served him right. . . . Sneaking around, trying to find out what > we were up to . . . hoping he could get us expelled.") In fact, > any attempt I make to frame a Snape backstory is informed > primarily by the Draco-Lucius relationship. However, I doubt that one of the Trio would ever pull a prank that could come as close to getting Malfoy killed as Sirius almost came to getting Snape killed. (The twins might, though, through sheer carelessness.) I don't believe JKR will ever paint Harry, Ron or Hermione as being so malicious, even if the target were Draco Malfoy. (And I sincerely hope we eventually find out that Snape did more to the Marauders than just spy on them and try to get them expelled. This is a pretty poor excuse, IMO, to set a werewolf on someone and to risk making that werewolf--one of your best friends-- a murderer.) > The other parallel is the one between Neville and Pettigrew. > Despite my desire to discount the parallel on the basis that the > textual references make it too obvious (especially Harry's visions > in PoA ch. 11 where Pettigrew resembles Neville), the parallels > force their way out into the open. Both are widely believed to be > weak wizards (McGonagall remarks at the Three Broomsticks that > Pettigrew was "not in [the Marauders'] class", but Pettigrew > demonstrates more than adequate power in GoF, and in the framing > of Sirius. Likewise, Neville is portrayed as a near-Squib, but > his latent powers are apparent with each ruined cauldron. I believe that the seeming parallels between Neville and Peter are meant to be a red herring. At some point, I fully expect everyone to suspect that Neville is up to no good or that he has been recruited by Voldemort, a la Peter Pettigrew, only to have him turn about and contribute to a minor victory. (I say a 'minor victory' because I believe this would be more likely to occur in years 5 or 6, while the big victory in year 7 would likely be Harry's alone.) I believe that JKR has been setting up this red herring for a while. (And foreshadowing it by giving Neville his minor victory in the first book, when his ten points put Gryffindor over the top for the House Cup.) OTOH, there is another character bearing a remarkable resemblance to Pettigrew who is usually overlooked. I think his name and description are meant to point to Peter as the traitor long before we find out that Scabbers is a wizard and Peter is the Secret Keeper who betrayed James and Lily. That character is Piers Polkiss. The first description we get of him is, for a start, quite blatant in its similarities to Peter Pettigrew: "Piers was a scrawny boy with a face like a rat. He was usually the one who held people's arms behind their backs while Dudley hit them." Now, doesn't this also sound like it could describe Peter? Other similarities are: "Piers" is a variant of Peter (in Swedish or Norwegian, I think) and Piers Polkiss and Peter Pettigrew have the same initials. Now, I'm not comparing Dudley to either Voldemort or the Marauders. But, later in the HP books, Sirius tells Harry that Peter had a knack for latching onto powerful people. Piers obviously has this knack too, in that Dudley was the school bully and all of the other children shied away from being Harry's friends so that they wouldn't get on Dudley's bad side. (All right, come to think of it, Dudley is actually a pretty good equivalent to Voldemort in the Muggle world--school playground version, anyway. Mostly, though, I believe he is supposed to be a doppelganger for Draco Malfoy.) I believe that we are meant to remember the description of Piers when Peter Pettigew is introduced, and understand that he is the same kind of boot-licking sycophant. This could not possibly describe Neville, who stood up to Draco Malfoy and his goons at a Quidditch match and got trounced for it. (Neither Piers nor Peter would ever do that, I believe.) > Both Neville and Lupin are followers rather than leaders. How do you reckon this? It seems to me that Lupin was the heart of the Marauders. His three best friends worked very hard for years to become Animagi for his sake. I don't understand this interpretation of either Neville's or Lupin's characters at all. Neville also took the initiative and invited two girls he liked to the Yule Ball-- first Hermione, who already had a date, and then Ginny. There's no moss growing on Neville. > also McGonagall states in PoA, at the Three Broomsticks, that > James and Sirius were the leaders. That doesn't necessarily make Lupin a follower, however. And I think Lupin was just very good at being low-key (he's clearly an introvert, while James and Sirius appear to have been extroverts). He didn't want to stand out and have people figure out what made him different. > And Neville is often seen doing things (e.g., attacking Malfoy, > trying to stop the Trio from going after the Stone) because he has > been told that's how he should behave. Heavens, no. He did those things because he was a Gryffindor. Plenty of people are told how to behave and never do it because it runs counter to their nature. > In addition, both Lupin and Neville are concealing secrets, Lupin > about his condition and Neville about his family. They're hardly parallel secrets, though. And once they became Animagi, all of the Marauders had secrets. > For another example, take James & Sirius, on the one hand, and > Harry & Ron on the other. There are some obvious similarities. > But it is not a complete parallel. As has been pointed out > already, in their penchant for mischief, James and Sirius far more > resemble Fred & George than they do Harry & Ron. Definitely. This is why, however, I worry that the twins could do something as careless as Sirius' prank. They've already been involved in borderline-blackmail and gambling. Frankly, as the wait for book five continues, I grow more and more worried about the twins' futures. --Barb Come join the new Psychic Serpent group for discussion of all fics in the Psychic Serpent series of HP fanfics! http://groups.yahoo.com/group/psychic_serpent (This replaces the old group at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HP_Psych) Chapter 4 of the Lost Generation is up! http://www.schnoogle.com/authors/barb/LG04.html Chapter 9 of the Triangle Prophecy is up! http://www.schnoogle.com/authors/barb/TP09.html From tmarends at yahoo.com Tue Aug 13 18:03:07 2002 From: tmarends at yahoo.com (tmarends) Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 18:03:07 -0000 Subject: Gringrotts Security In-Reply-To: <005b01c242ab$278ba820$9600000a@newpc> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42571 YORIS Wrote: > > On the end of PoA Sirius writes in a letter to harry, he tells him "i used > your name but told them to take the gold from Gringotts vault number seven > hundred and eleven - my own." > How could Sirius use Harry's name to acces his own vault? because for the > people in the bank it would seem like Harry asking money from SOMEONE ELSES > account, and why would they grant such a request? > > Sure there is thing about the keys but what if a key would got stolen? i > hope those keys aren't the only protection, you saw how easily sirius could > break in into an house and what if he would have token the key of the people > living there on his way? > Also he didn't really go to gringrotts he only send an owl, and would he > send his key - being the ONLY claim on all his money- with it? I think not, > if he would have lost that key he would lose ALL of his money, and he didnt > have a reliabel owl too. > > Well it seems to me that Gringrotts security is REALLY sucky and then i'm > asking myself how come noone ever abused it > > Yoris > -- wishes to be a wizzard-fraud Harry could have been listed as a benefactor on the account. Sirius would obviously know this, even if Harry would not. But Gringott's would have it on file that if anything should happen to Sirius Black then Harry Potter would become the owner of the vault. Tim From feliciarickmann at dsl.pipex.com Tue Aug 13 18:39:59 2002 From: feliciarickmann at dsl.pipex.com (feliciarickmann) Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 18:39:59 -0000 Subject: Ticket to ride - no wands necessary In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42572 > If, as I've always assumed (sorry I > > can't quote canon here because I simply don't remember it, if it > > exists) one needs a wand to apparate, ...........? > > > > Marianne, queen of the deadbolts Can someone confirm that a wand IS definitely needed to apparate. I do not remember anything that that effect in canon. Not to cast aspertions on Marianne, it's just that I know that seems to have been no *apparations* as such only floo powder, portkeys and the like. Would a wand be necessary to focus wazarding power or would an experienced wizard be able to focus the necessary energy without it. By way of example, we can all run for the bus, but only athletes like Dwain Chambers and Maurice Green can run under 10 seconds and get gold medals. Certification is necessary before a wizard is formally allowed to apparate as, it is, and this canon does confirm, dangerous for the inexperienced. I would expect, myself, that anyone capable of sophisticated and complex magic would in all probability be able to apparate without a wand, although they would not recommend doing it too often. Felicia From lilac_bearry at yahoo.com Tue Aug 13 19:25:49 2002 From: lilac_bearry at yahoo.com (Lilac) Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 12:25:49 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [FILK] MAGIC MESSAGING SPELL Message-ID: <20020813192549.40694.qmail@web40301.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 42573 MAGIC MESSAGING SPELL to the tune of "Message In A Bottle" by the Police Dedicated to Steve of the wonderful HP Lexicon for coming up with the name "Messaging Spell", and to those listies who helped clarify what that "silvery thing" was (I thought it flew out of Hagrid's cabin, not Dumbledore's wand). (THE SCENE: GOF PG. 559-560 HARRY IS LEADING DUMBLEDORE TO THE SPOT WHERE HE LEFT KRUM TO WATCH OVER CROUCH) HARRY Just across the way, a lost man with scratches that bleed-oh A lonely Mr. Crouch from the Ministry-oh Left alone with Krum, I hope they did take care-oh He's not making sense, I left them over there-oh DUMBLEDORE (NOTICING KRUM'S PRONE BODY AND NO CROUCH) I will send an SOS to Hagrid I will send an SOS to Hagrid I hope that Hagrid gets my I hope that Hagrid gets my I hope that Hagrid gets my Magic Messaging Spell, yeah Magic Messaging Spell, yeah HARRY (OBSERVING TO HIMSELF0) A silvery dart shaped like a ghostly bird Shot out of the end of Dumbledore's wand Only Dumbledore said not a word It flew through the trees to Hagrid's hut beyond DUMBLEDORE I just sent an SOS to Hagrid I just sent an SOS to Hagrid I know that soon he'll get my I know that soon he'll get my I know that soon he'll get my Magic Messaging Spell, yeah Magic Messaging Spell, yeah...Oh, Magic Messaging Spell, yeah Magic Messaging Spell, yeah (THEY HEAR HAGRID CRASHING THROUGH THE TREES TOWARDS THEM) HARRY Here comes Hagrid now with his dog and his crossbow DUMBLEDORE (TO HAGRID) Hagrid, first fetch Karkaroff, then Moody. Go! HARRY Man, that messaging spell really worked well! Wonder what Jo will call this handy magic spell? Hope I learn an SOS like that Better learn to SOS like that Dumbledore should now teach me Dumbledore should now teach me Dumbledore should now teach me Magic Messaging Spell, yeah Magic Messaging Spell, yeah Handy magical spell, yeah Magic Messaging Spell, yeah Teach me how to SOS Gonna need that SOS I need to know that SOS Gotta have that SOS etc.... ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~ "Tut, tut --- hardly any of you remembered that my favorite color is *lilac*. I say so in Year with the Yeti." --Gilderoy Lockhart, COS --------------------------------- Do You Yahoo!? HotJobs, a Yahoo! service - Search Thousands of New Jobs [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From kkearney at students.miami.edu Tue Aug 13 19:25:55 2002 From: kkearney at students.miami.edu (corinthum) Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 19:25:55 -0000 Subject: Gringrotts Security In-Reply-To: <00db01c242ca$35d0d260$193568d5@xxx> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42574 Yoris wrote: > "On the end of PoA Sirius writes in a letter to harry, he tells him "i used > your name but told them to take the gold from Gringotts vault number seven > hundred and eleven - my own." > How could Sirius use Harry's name to acces his own vault? because for the > people in the bank it would seem like Harry asking money from SOMEONE ELSES > account, and why would they grant such a request?" And I reply: I'm no accountant, and I'm pulling most of this from spy novels and the like, so I may be wrong on some of these details. That said... Perhaps the account is similar to a numbered account. In many countries, one doesn't have to attach a name to an account. The account is labeled only by a number. A hand-written version of the number is used as a signature when withdrawing funds. If this is the case, Sirius could have written a letter to Gringotts, claiming to be Harry Potter, the owner vault 711, and presenting a hand-written verification that he owned the vault. Gringotts wouldn't care what name was on the letter (although they would have notified the MoM had it been Siuris' own) so long as the number signature matched. -Corinth From lucky_kari at yahoo.ca Tue Aug 13 19:32:31 2002 From: lucky_kari at yahoo.ca (lucky_kari) Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 19:32:31 -0000 Subject: Introducing a New Memory Charm Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42575 A long long time ago, in a museum basement far far away, a group of Theory Bay's zaniest sailors gathered under the direction of the dread captain Elkins for a symposium on memory charms. The transcript of the meeting can be found here. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/38812 There are three parts and many interesting responses, so if you feel a little confused about where this post is going, feel free to dip through these. The Memory Charm issue has been traditionally divided into two questions: WHO? and WHY? I intend to finger a very common suspect in these proceedings, but to suggest not only a very different reason, but a very different account of what happened with the Longbottoms. The direct inspiration for this theory was a marriage of the Memory Charm Symposium and my "Speaking Frankly" post http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/40762 In "Speaking Frankly," I wrote: "You see, Frank had a rather intriguing life. He was an auror, and extremely popular, but he managed to eclipse these accomplishments by being tortured by DEs to discover where Voldemort was. "Time after time, listies have pointed out that the DEs were probably wrong. Frank had absolutely no knowledge of where Voldemort was. How could he? He didn't divulge the information because he didn't know it. It's perfectly rational, but I don't buy it. " In a world where Peter is Scabbers, I refuse to believe that JKR sets up this fascinating possibility that Frank knew something, something that could still influence the plot as a complete red herring. It's well, as one my masters taught me when I was a young padawan learner, not BIG BANGY. If JKR passes up on this chance, I will be very disappointed." However, in the Memory Charm symposium, Elkins wrote: "So all in all, I feel fairly well convinced that poor Frank Longbottom really didn't know a thing." But why, Elkins, why? Tabouli wrote: "I dunno. I'm just not convinced that many people *really* get tortured to death without spilling the beans." Elkins wrote: "No, neither am I, and I don't think that JKR is either. The HP books are written in a fairly heroic idiom, but they're not written in *that* heroic an idiom." BUT GUYS! What sort of Big Bang is that? It was all a case of mistaken identity? How's Neville going to remember the secret to destroy Voldemort.... err... well... But wait a second.... Haven't we been assuming all along something that we had no right to assume? Assuming that Frank didn't spill the beans? Assuming that Mrs. Lestrange and co. didn't get the information they came for that night? You see, something that has bugged me a lot about these "Neville has Frank's secret stored away in his mind" theories is that they are all due for a yellow flag violation. Nowhere in the Potterverse is there yet any demonstration that this is an option. However, if one hears a secret, one can definitely have it stored away in one's mind. The only way Neville can be the messenger is IF Frank was tortured into revealing the secret IN NEVILLE'S HEARING! So far, very good, but whodunit? Dicentra wrote: "I'm not ready to claim that Fudge tortured the Longbottoms, but I'll always vote for him covering up something evil." Elkins wrote: "Yeah. You know, I try, I really do try, to resist the seductive lure of Ever So Evil Fudge. I fight against it with all of my might. See, I'm just way too fond of reading Fudge and Crouch as literary doubles in GoF, and that reading goes all to *pieces* once you start wagging your finger at Fudge and crying "FIE!" It really does. It throws everything hopelessly out of balance." Well, well, well... Let me paint a picture for you. Fudge is first on the scene in the Longbottom affair just as he was with Sirius Black. He takes charge of the situation, including a traumatized two-year Neville. However, within a few minutes of doing so, he becomes very frightened. Little Neville is saying words that indicate he overheard something big about Voldemort, about going after Voldemort. Now, right now it's just the incoherent and upset ramblings of a two-year old, but Fudge knows that once Law Enforcement gets wind of this, they can probably get some testimony out of Neville, especially as the Potterverse has proved through Harry that a one-year-old's auditory memories are retrievable through dementors. Now, if there's one thing Fudge is, he's a coward. Voldemort has gone away. He doesn't want to think about it. He doesn't want Crouch Sr. undertaking something risky, something that may upset the new world that "we've tried to build." The status quo is much better. It would be for the best for everyone, including Neville (for Fudge is always doing the kindly politician thing and would probably justify himself with the classic memory charm theory), if this was to be swept under the rug. And so, Fudge goes ahead. Meanwhile, Mrs. Lestrange and co. never get a chance to go ahead with the knowledge that they've obtained, because Moody takes them in. However, years later what was it that Bertha Jorkins overheard Crouch Jr. saying to Winky that convinced Voldemort Crouch was still his loyal servant? I submit that Crouch Jr. was referring to the knowledge they got from Frank and how he was going to use it. And for Fourth Man devotees, Avery has a very guilty conscience about never acting on that knowledge, when he was the only DE at liberty to do so. Now, comes the end of GoF, and the new memory charm theory makes Fudge's behaviour more and more explicable. Fudge has already burnt his bridges. Voldemort can't be returned. He just can't. Because if he has, then Fudge has already destroyed their only way out of the situation. Rather than face up to this, Fudge refuses to believe Dumbledore. So there you are. All it needs now is a spiffy name. Eileen From crussell at arkansas.net Tue Aug 13 16:08:32 2002 From: crussell at arkansas.net (bugaloo37) Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 16:08:32 -0000 Subject: Animagi, Hedwig and Forbidden Forest In-Reply-To: <012f01c242cd$14439ee0$1b4053d1@SaalsD> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42576 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Grace" wrote: wrote: > I don't think he needs to be an animagus either. We already know that lots > of owls have been going Dumbledore from the MoM because Fudge sends them > daily. Essentially, I get the sense that Dumbledore has his thumb on > everything that goes on and when he encounters a situation (like Buckbeak) > that he knows - and everyone else knows - is really not his place to be, he > defers or works around, problem solving quietly in the background. I really > don't thik he has the time to spend 2 months of the summer being Hedwig in > order to baby sit Harry. There are far more important things going on in > the WW than Harry. > > CoS, Harry enters Dumbledore's office for the first time. > "It was a larger circular room, full of funny little noises. A number of > curious silver instruments stood on spindle-legged tables, whirring and > emitting little puffs of smoke." > > I think JKR wanted the reader to assume that Dumbledore has a fascination > for gagets. But I suspect that what he really has is a fascination and a > need for information. It wouldn't be hard to realize that all these little > instruments are information-gathering aids. > > Grace I do not believe that Dumbledore's animagus is an owl either, but I do believe there is a possibility that he transforms into something else-another animal that has not been revealed to us. As for baby- sitting Harry, I think Dumbledore does that without being in the room with him. He seems to aware of Harry's whereabouts and is there for him even when he is physically not there. Also as to Harry's importance to the WW-IMHO, I think he is extremely important-why else would he have had all the protection he has had up to this point. Dumbledore not only watches over Harry -protectively- he also seems to be a sort of catalyst-steering him in certain directions. I am not removing Harry's free will in stating that- he still has to make the choices of which routes to take. IMO, Harry is the key to the ultimate downfall of Voldemort-how that will be accomplished, of course, is the mystery. bugaloo37 From clare.pilotconsult at btinternet.com Tue Aug 13 17:44:37 2002 From: clare.pilotconsult at btinternet.com (Clare Johnson) Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 18:44:37 +0100 Subject: Madame Hooch and Clandestine Marriages References: <1029238995.3034.41688.m10@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <00ee01c242f1$1a455c60$2dc87ad5@e4t0t4> No: HPFGUIDX 42577 Kangasboy has just opened a thrilling Pandora's box with his comment *Now I realise that there is a problem with the list of unregistered animagi, and I think it highly unlikely that we'd have another unregistered animagus. However, there are a number of ways around this: What if Madame Hooch is married, and registered before she got married? We are unaware of her first name, plus JKR in an interview (I forget which), refused to answer a question concerning the marital status of the Hogwarts teacher. Plus she is a 'Madame", which if I remember my French properly, which is the equivalent of "Mrs".* Yes!!! More enticing avenues of subterfuge and metathinking now open up as we start to consider who Madame's Hooch's husband could be. To me, there aren't enough outdoor types (apart from Charlie Weasley and Hagrid, neither of whom are credible because I feel that we'll want Charlie for romantic interest later and Hagrid's faithful nature (so his courtship of Madame Maxime wouldn't fit) and his total inability to keep a secret without dropping hints to his 50 most intimate friends (much as I like Hagrid) to make this kind of match. I suppose Ludo Bagman as an ex-Quidditch player is a possibility but can anyone see the forthright Madame Hooch putting up with Ludo's flakiness, untrustworthiness and the general shambles that he creates in his wake? So then we are left with the attraction of opposites, as we have never seen Madame Hooch fraternising with anyone as I can recall. Of course, we may not yet have met the gallant wizard (or other!) but she does bring a strong breath of the outside world into Hogwarts for me. Hoping someone will join me in speculating! Clareysage. From flower_fairy12 at yahoo.co.uk Tue Aug 13 17:55:14 2002 From: flower_fairy12 at yahoo.co.uk (flower_fairy12) Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 17:55:14 -0000 Subject: The Marauders Vs. The Trio-who is who? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42578 elfundeb wrote: > more to the Marauders than just spy on them and try to get them > expelled. This is a pretty poor excuse, IMO, to set a werewolf on > someone and to risk making that werewolf--one of your best friends-- > a murderer.) He probably pulled pranks on them too. > OTOH, there is another character bearing a remarkable resemblance to > Pettigrew who is usually overlooked. I think his name and > description are meant to point to Peter as the traitor long before > we find out that Scabbers is a wizard and Peter is the Secret Keeper > who betrayed James and Lily. That character is Piers Polkiss. The > first description we get of him is, for a start, quite blatant in > its similarities to Peter Pettigrew: > > "Piers was a scrawny boy with a face like a rat. He was usually the > one who held people's arms behind their backs while Dudley hit them." > > Now, doesn't this also sound like it could describe Peter? Other > similarities are: "Piers" is a variant of Peter (in Swedish or > Norwegian, I think) and Piers Polkiss and Peter Pettigrew have the > same initials. I never thought of him before! It might not be that important though, because he is hardly a central character and we don't know what he is really like, or wether he would want to murder someone. (But...he was evil to Harry wasn't he?) Rosey From jodel at aol.com Tue Aug 13 18:47:05 2002 From: jodel at aol.com (jodel at aol.com) Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 14:47:05 EDT Subject: Dumbledore/Weasleys/McGonagall+Riddle Message-ID: <15a.12628fb7.2a8aae29@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 42579 In a message dated 8/13/02 Richelle writes: << I can't think of any bees or buzzing, however, there is the statement Dumbledore made to Harry at the Mirror of Erised. "I don't need a cloak to become invisible." Did he mean literally invisible? >> This is short, but I don't see much else to link it to. Wouldn't it be a hoot if Dumbledore's animagus form were a demiguise? (Note: there are absolutely NO grounds to suspect that animagus forms might not be limited to those of natural creatures -- which I personally suspect is probably the case, regardless.) The demiguise is described in Fantastic Beasts as looking like a graceful ape with soulful eyes and the ability of becoming invisible at will. They are very rare and are hunted for their pelts, which are used to weave invisibility cloaks. In human form Dumbledore certainly has enough hair around him to make a good start on a cloak... --------------------------------- Regarding the Weasley ages; I've not been following this thread all that closely over the ladt few Digests, but I did notice while I was doing so that a lot of the debate seemed to be focused on the age gap between Charlie and Percy. It occurs to me that most of the comments made by characters in passing are more tuned to the age difference between Charlie and Ron (and Harry). And while the compressed birth year scenareo does work, it isn't particularly comfortable. But the extreme age gap between Charlie and Percy doesn't feel all that right to me either. On the setting of the long gap timing, as I have been following it it reads something like; 1. If the issue is that Gryffandor hasn't won the cup since Charlie was Seeker, and; 2. if Charlie played the position of Seeker throughout his Hogwarts career, and; 3. The last year that Gryffandor won the cup was seven years before the date that people were bringing up the subject, and; 4. People were bringing up the subject in Harry (and Ron's) first year, then -- Charlie LEFT Hogwarts seven years berfore Ron STARTED. (Not Percy. Ron.) Charlie would be fourteen years older than Ron. Percy is four years older than Ron. Charlie would be ten years older than Percy. And, somehow, this just doesn't quite work for me. Why? Because I can't really buy the kind of exaggerated hero worship that Oliver Wood has for Charlie unless Oliver has some reason to feel that he KNEW Charlie in his glory days. Knew him at Hogwarts. And it isn't that difficult to work out a plausible scenareo which would allow for it. It is very easy to accept that Charlie was the Gryffandor Seeker for 5-6 years running and that Gryffandor took the cup in the majority of those years. But it doesn't have to have taken it EVERY year that Charlie was Seeker. We've seen already that even though Harry is a superior Seeker, it wasn't until his third year that Gryffandor took the cup. I propose that through injury or sheer bad luck Gryffandor may have been edged out for the cup in one or two of Charlie's last years. Because that would open the possibility that Oliver was a dazzled 2nd year who made the team (as a reserve) in Charlie's 7th year, and Charlie was HIS Captain. In fact, by Harry's third year, Oliver is the LAST member of "Charlie's team" left at Hogwarts. Which to me, at least, just feels RIGHT. In which case, Charlie is five years older than Percy, and Bill, I think would probably be one or two years older than Charlie. A six year gap would also work, leaving Oliver as a dazzled firstie watching Charlie save the day for Gryffandor, (even it it didn't capture the cup) but not, I think, nearly as well. (Bill's "five years ago" visit could very well have been to watch the twin's first game as the Gryffandor Beaters assuming they made the team in their 2nd year. The timing certainly works for it.) Following the 5-year gap scenareo, the ages of the Weasley kids at the end of GoF would even out as; Ginny -14 (April birthday) Ron - 15 (March Birthday) Twins - 17 (April birthday) Percy - 18/19 (I don't know his birthday) Charlie - 23-25 Bill - 24+. Around 25-27 feels right. Which would project Molly into her mid-40s give or take a year or three. Arthur anything up to 3 years older. On that note; I do not have my copy of Goblet with me at the moment, but didn't Molly make some comment about she and Arthur dodging the old caretaker (or groundskeeper)? That would nail down the assumption that everyone seems to be making that she and Arthur first became involved with eash other while they were still at Hogwarts. Because it just occurred to me that if Molly and Arthur are cousins of some degree they would have had ample opportunity to have developed an attraction without needing to be in close year groups at Hogwarts and their age difference could well be greater. (Giving Arthur even more time to establish himself while waiting for Molly to graduate, and lessening any reason to delay starting a family over financial considerations once she did.) Ginny's comment about wanting to go to Hogwarts "ever since Bill started" can be interpreted as careless phrasing of; "ever since Bill was there", which would be understandable, since in Ginny's early childhood, Bill had *always* been at Hogwarts. ---------------------------------- On McGonagall/Riddle at Hogwarts; Richelle's post on this subject brings up something that has been noted, but, as she points out, due to fuzzy information cannot be nailed down exactly (yet). Rowling did indeed state that McGonagall was a "sprightly 70" in one of her interviews. Unfortunately, this comes across as a general age range rather than a definite number. It does firmly land Minerva at Hogwarts during at least part of the Riddle era, however. Our information on Riddle's time at Hogwarts, so far comes entirely from CoS. And hangs on the date printed on the cover of the diary. Harry and Ron didn't get hold of the diary until after the Christmas break, so if the diary was dated "50 years earlier" -- which it would have been, since that "50 years" was their only inital clue -- then it would have been dated 1943. Which presents its own continuity problems. The diary, to all appearances, was purchased for the purpose of embeding the revenant into it (since there are no traces of its having been used for anything else). Riddle could not very well have gone off to Hogwarts the year before intending to put himself into a book. So the revenant was embedded into the diary AFTER the whole Chamber interlude and the framing and expulsion of Hagrid. We do not know HOW long after, but given that the book was purchased in a London shop (am I correct in my vague reccollection that the address given of the stationer's shop is near King's Cross Station?) the probability is that Riddle bought (or shoplifted?, probably from a discount cart since it was June of the year that the diary was printed for and still unsold) the diary during the summer and embedded the revenant into it early in the following school term, since to do so over the summer would have drawn the attention Mafalda Hopkirk or her predecessor. Therefore; the diary revenant was embedded in Riddle's sixth year. Which would agree with the revenant being Riddle's 16-year-old self. But the Chamber was actually opened in his fifth year (academic year '42-'43). From which we can work out that Tom Riddle graduated with Hogwarts' Class of 1945. (Ring any bells?) Had Hagrid not been expelled in his 3rd year, he would have graduated in the class of '47. As to McGonagall, if GoF is taking place in the academic year of '94-'95 and she is roughly 70 years old at that time, we can extrapolate her birth as being at some point in the mid 1920s. If Riddle was class of '45, and that seems pretty definite, he would have started hogwarts in the academic year of '38-'39, and have been born somewhere between September of 1926 and August of 1927. Tom and Minerva's time at Hogwarts certainly overlapped, but the degree of uncertainty over Minerva's actual birth date makes it difficult to determine how much. Since she makes no statements related to the Chamber of Secrets incident it is tempting to claim that it took place after she graduated, but the fact that the whole matter was supressed by Headmaster Dippett could simply mean that she does not feel herself at liberty to mention the incident even now. (If she was Head Girl during the year the Chamber was opened, she could have been directly told to say anything about it, much as Snape was forbidden to speak of the werewolf prank.) It would also not be difficult to apply enough flexibility to the question of when she was born to make an arguement that she and Riddle were in the same year, although that seems less likely. -------------------------------- Which brings me to another issue regarding the Riddle era at Hogwarts. Harry immediately noticed the similarity in type of artifact between the Marauder's Map and the Riddle diary. And one thing that we are given to understand (or at least assume) is that the Marauders did not make a name for themselves for messing with the Dark Arts. The fact that the diary was a consious entity did not in itself make it a piece of Dark magic. But the fact that it seems to have deffinitely been a Dark artifact seems clear to every reader of Chamber. After all, it harbored the revenant of a Dark wizard. Tom Riddle may have been decended from Salizar Slytherin, but he was no scion of an ancient name raised in a manor with an extensive library on the Dark Arts. He was a peniless orphan who never heard of the wizarding world OR Salizar Slytherin until he went to Hogwarts. And yet, only five years later he is a Dark wizard of considerable power, and only at the beginning of his career. Who TOLD him he was the last known decendent of Salizar Slytherin? Who TAUGHT him the Dark Arts? Hogwarts, unlike Durmstrang, is not a Dark Arts school. Was it different in Dippett's day? I tend to doubt it. Because Riddle was taught. He had to have been. All the sneaking into the Restricted Section or staying with Slytherin schoolmates over the term breaks would not account for his reaching the point he had reached by the time the revenant was embedded into the diary. Not without making mistakes. I contend that there is no way that Tom Riddle could have gotten his foothold in the Dark Arts by independent study without at least one blunder which would have given somebody on the Hogwarts staff a clue of what he was up to. Someone who took an interest. Are we looking at the possibility of a PROFESSOR Grindlewald? (Durmstrang, class of '94, maybe?) Because we only know that Grindlewald was a Dark wizard. We have been given NO information in canon to make us run away with the idea that he was a self-anointed Dark LORD. Or that he ever had any interest AT ALL with whatever some crazy Muggles were up to. And in 1945, Dumbledore was Transfiguration master at Hogwarts, not engaging in espionage on the contenent. Maybe he was simply recruiting a new generation of Dark wizards at Hogwarts. DId the pupil surpass the master? Did the master decide to make use of the pupil? Did the pupil decide that he didn't choose to be used? Murders are inconvenient and draw so much attention. Maybe we should make a study of betrayal? In any case, it seems likely that Riddle managed to slip out of the situation with his public reputation unblemished. One wonders if Dumbledore was left with suspicions that there was more to the Grindlewald incident than ever came to light. How long have Riddle and Dumbledore been engaged in this covert duel? --JOdel From fyredriftwood at yahoo.com Tue Aug 13 18:57:12 2002 From: fyredriftwood at yahoo.com (fyredriftwood) Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 18:57:12 -0000 Subject: The Importance of Being Neville (was Re: who is who--trio vs maruauders) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42580 Darrin, IMO the brilliant thinker on this Yahoo!Group wrote: > I say Neville, and not just for the obvious physical similarities. > McGonagall flat-out said in PoA that Neville reminded her of > Pettigrew. > > Pettigrew played a pivotal role in the events (and still might). His > betrayal of the Potters set a lot of things in motion. > > I believe Neville will have a similar pivotal role. For good or for > evil, I have not formulated a guess yet, but I believe the climax of > the series will not be able to be written without Neville's > involvement. > > Darrin My thoughts: There is a reason why Neville was placed into Gryffindor, and it wasn't to stand up to the Gryffindor Trio in their first year. No, his importance is still needed..... just *what* it is going to be.. we don't know. I have a feeling he's going to either save the day, or die while trying to protect everyone. He's going to discover his ability to conjure spells and other wizard-like things. Perhaps he'll be the hero with his Herbology skillz (yes with a "z").. or perhaps he'll try and do something foolish to save everyone and die. However, Neville's past history has been told--making him a major character now. Only the major characters have had their pasts told to us... and now he's one of them.... I just wish I knew *what* his destiny is! --Fyre Wood, the Death Eater who is a Draco Malfoy fanatic, hates Pansy Parkinson, and worships the ground that Voldy walks on. From msiscusack at yahoo.com Tue Aug 13 19:18:21 2002 From: msiscusack at yahoo.com (Kristin Cusack) Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 12:18:21 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Latin in Harry Potter In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020813191821.31846.qmail@web13102.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 42581 --- mrflynn6 wrote: > erised (as in mirror of)= master/owner I just wanted to comment on this...I'm not sure if you were just looking names up for fun or to help dragonettefish see how entymolgies work...but for erised I really don't think that's the case when reading erised backwards is 'desire' I think thats enough for the hidden meaning of the word...rather than ancient latin roots. Its a common, everyday english word written backwards. (in fact, look at the entire inscription backwards and it reads "I show not you face but your hearts desire." So just to let you know, so you don't worry about finding an entymology that works with the mirror's role in the story. ~Kristin __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? HotJobs - Search Thousands of New Jobs http://www.hotjobs.com From msiscusack at yahoo.com Tue Aug 13 19:31:32 2002 From: msiscusack at yahoo.com (Kristin Cusack) Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 12:31:32 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Cannons-Missing 24 hours? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020813193132.96027.qmail@web13103.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 42582 --- dragonettefish wrote: > Hi! I dont get the chance to read these message > boards every day and > lately I have been seeing a lot of posts about > cannons and a missing > 24 hours that I assume was sometime during Molly and > James Potters > death. I am confused to what exactly cannons mean > and why everyone > thinks there was a time gap. I was hoping someone > could explain all > of it to me. Thank You! > > dragonettefish > Okie dokie... --If you just look back for the past 50 or so posts you will get a clear explanation of the missing 24 hour as well as theories...but long story short, no one knows where Harry went from the moment he was rescued from the rubble by Hagrid at night on Oct. 31 and when he arrived on Privet Drive at night on Nov. 1. --Harry's parents are named James and LILY...Molly is Ron's mother and is very much alive. --and caNon...there aren't post about caNNons as in the big weapons. Canon is a term that they use on this list (and perhaps elsewhere, but I first heard it here)to say that there is direct basis on fact from the text in their post. All messages on the board must refer to canonical points meaning they have to speak to something about the actual text as opposed to posting "I really like HArry Potter." or talking about the movie or something. For example: A canon point is that Harry's birthday is July 31...we are told this directly in the text, it is not an assumption, theory, or deduction. We KNOW. And thats basically it. Hope it helps, Kristin __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? HotJobs - Search Thousands of New Jobs http://www.hotjobs.com From smiller at dslextreme.com Tue Aug 13 20:07:10 2002 From: smiller at dslextreme.com (constance_vigilance) Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 20:07:10 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore Animagus? In-Reply-To: <002301c24276$25f3bd20$609fcdd1@istu757> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42583 Ginny writes: > 1. Is Dumbledore an animagus, and if so what form? I agree that he > ought to be, and that a bumblebee makes sense from etymology (which > is, interestingly enough, only one letter different than entymology, > assuming I'm spelling correctly). However, if that were the case, > it would have been very easy for JK to slip little hints and > foreshadowings in. Then Richelle adds: > I can't think of any bees or buzzing .... One argument that I made earlier in this discussion got snipped out right away, but I still think it is important, and that is the exact *lack* of foreshadowing of the excuse JKR gave for coming up with the name. She said that she envisioned D-dore humming as he walks. Has there been ANY canon that shows him humming? The only time I can recall him even _singing_ is in SS/PS where he leads the Hogwarts population in the school song. Therefore, I firmly believe that JKR sent us a red herring with that "humming" excuse. Now we know that she chooses her names very carefully. If Rita "Skeeter" is a bug, then I have to believe that "Dumbledore" is a bug. Even if that is somewhat of a distasteful comparison and conclusion. On a related topic, I like the idea that someone presented that Madame Hooch could be an owl. That would explain the odd yellow eyes, and the fact that she teaches flying. ~Constance Vigilance ~ From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Tue Aug 13 20:32:06 2002 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (bboy_mn) Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 20:32:06 -0000 Subject: Slightly OT: Thoughts on Apparation/Gringrotts Security In-Reply-To: <005b01c242ab$278ba820$9600000a@newpc> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42584 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Yoris" wrote: > Just a small note on selective charms > > bboy said: > > True there could be selective anti-appparation charms but I don't > > think we've seen any examples of charms that are that selelctive. > > But then we are dealing with magic, so anything is possible. Yoris repkied: > > What about the enchantment dumbledore set onto the GoF, that only > let people through above a certain age. What about the magic book > of eleven year olds, it even selects on two thingies: the kids must > have become eleven AND the kids must be wizzards. > bboy_mn Responds: Those charms still have pretty general 'selectivity'. The Age Line was put around the Goblet of Fire; the Goblet itself wasn't altered. A simple age barrier is pretty straight forward. Now if it was an age barrier that would only let in girls over the age of 16 with blond hair on Tuesday, dark hair on Wednesday, and red hair on Thursday, and would only let boys over 5 foot 8 inch on Monday and under 5 foot 8 inch on Friday, and would only let age 17 and above across the line on Sunday it the were not Christian, then you would have a selective charm. Even that is not as selective as an Anti-Apparation charm that could read your mind and would only let people in who you held in a favorable light at any given moment. I'm not saying I can't foresee general selective Anti-Apparation charms that wouldn't work, like a charm that is only active from 9PM to 9AM. That wouldn't be that selective. Or a charm on the customer area of a store that allow apparation during business hours and a separate charm on the store room that doesn't allow anyone but the owner to apparate. So, I'm not say it's impossible, but in the assumed context in which it was discussed, the selectivity was a little too complex. ---end bboy_mn---- Yoris Original Comment: > Gingrotts Security > > On the end of PoA Sirius writes in a letter to harry, he tells > him "i used your name but told them to take the gold from Gringotts > vault number seven hundred and eleven - my own." > > How could Sirius use Harry's name to acces his own vault? because > for the people in the bank it would seem like Harry asking money > from SOMEONE ELSES account, and why would they grant such a request? > > Sure there is thing about the keys but what if a key would got > stolen? I hope those keys aren't the only protection, you saw > how easily sirius could break in into an house and what if he > would have token the key of the people living there on his way? > > Also he didn't really go to gringrotts he only send an owl, and > would he send his key - being the ONLY claim on all his money- > with it? I think not, if he would have lost that key he would > lose ALL of his money, and he didnt have a reliabel owl too. > > Well it seems to me that Gringrotts security is REALLY sucky and > then i'm asking myself how come none ever abused it. > > Yoris > -- wishes to be a wizzard-fraud bboy_mn responds on Gringott's Security: Some of my opinion on this subject some from my own fan-fictional world. I think the goblins who run the bank have a VERY keen awareness of someone's intent and they hold the people finances that they control or that are entrusted to them as a sacred trust, and they guard not only the money but the privacy of those accounts. For example, Mrs. Weasley takes money from Harry's vault while he is at the Quidditch World Cup match and picks up all Harry's supply for the new school year as well as a new supply of cash for his personal use. I think when she came to the bank and told the goblins what she was doing, their own internal lie detector saw that her intentions were honest and good, and allowed her to take the money. When Sirius Black allowed Harry to take money from his own personal account, I think several things came into play. One, that the goblins treat the privacy of peoples accounts very seriously and saw it as none of their business who's account was being accessed. Hence, they did not send a notice to the Ministry. There job is to guard money and privacy, not catch criminal for the Ministry. Two, there own internal truth detectors determined that this was legitamate. Plus, they may have had other evidence to indicate that this was a valid transaction. Someone else pointed out that Harry may now be the heir or benefactor of Sirius' bank account and this lent credability to the transaction. So, I don't think the goblins are just blind bureaucrats who approve everything that comes across their desk. I think the reason they are in charge of the banks is because the have this built-in ability to detect ill intent and bad faith and just plain crooks. bboy_mn From bard7696 at aol.com Tue Aug 13 20:32:22 2002 From: bard7696 at aol.com (darrin_burnett) Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 20:32:22 -0000 Subject: The Importance of Being Neville (was Re: who is who--trio vs maruauders) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42585 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "fyredriftwood" wrote: > Darrin, IMO the brilliant thinker on this Yahoo!Group wrote: > Now stop that. I'm sure others would vigorously, perhaps even violently, disagree with you. > I have a feeling he's going to either save the day, or die while > trying to protect everyone. He's going to discover his ability to > conjure spells and other wizard-like things. Perhaps he'll be the > hero with his Herbology skillz (yes with a "z").. or perhaps he'll > try and do something foolish to save everyone and die. > > However, Neville's past history has been told--making him a major > character now. Only the major characters have had their pasts told to > us... and now he's one of them.... I just wish I knew *what* his > destiny is! I'm not entirely convinced his contributions will be for good. We are not entirely sure if Neville knows exactly how his parents became the vegetables they are. It has been speculated that his general bumbling nature is related to a Memory Charm that is meant to shield him from the worst of the memory of his parents' fate. I wonder what Neville's reaction will be when he finds out for sure, if he doesn't know the entire truth now. My guess is he will be angry, vengeful and full of hate. In other words, damned easy to manipulate. Do I believe in Evil!Neville? No, I don't. But Misguided!Neville? Absolutely. > > --Fyre Wood, the Death Eater who is a Draco Malfoy fanatic, hates > Pansy Parkinson, and worships the ground that Voldy walks on. Darrin Um, have you READ my stuff attacking Slytherin and Draco? You ought to read it before you call me nice names. You might change your mind ;) From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Tue Aug 13 21:01:50 2002 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (bboy_mn) Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 21:01:50 -0000 Subject: Krum, Dumbledore, Transformations & Animagi Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42586 Dumbledore: Just a general comment on the recent speculation that Dumbledore is an animagi. A lot of this is based on Dumbledore having been a Transfiguration teacher. I would like to suggest you keep in mind that one does NOT have to be an animagi to do a human to animal transfiguration. Example, Viktor Krum transfigure, with only moderate success, himself into a shark so he can survive underwater during the second triwizards task. So having been a Transfiguration teacher is by no means an indication that Dumbledore is an animagi. Viktor: Off on a totally different topic. I think Viktor should have gotten full marks for his Human to Shark transformation. Actually, in my opinion, he did it perfect; he transformed his head, so he could breath under water, yet left his body intact so he still had hands. Problem with being a complete shark is, you can't pick things up and carry them. So, I think he did it just right. bboy_mn From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Tue Aug 13 21:18:13 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 21:18:13 -0000 Subject: Krum In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42587 bboy_mn wrote: > Viktor: > Off on a totally different topic. I think Viktor should have gotten > full marks for his Human to Shark transformation. Actually, in my > opinion, he did it perfect; he transformed his head, so he could > breath under water, yet left his body intact so he still had hands. > Problem with being a complete shark is, you can't pick things up and > carry them. So, I think he did it just right. > > bboy_mn Here, I have to digress. Just like in an exam, getting a correct answer with the wrong method must be penalized. In a math exam, getting the correct answer by having two opposing errors (the second happens to mend the first; it happens pretty often) won't get you full marks (or it shouldn't!). Thus, getting the appropiate effect with the wrong spell musn't be rewarded, either. That sort of error can cause *big* problems, and you don't want to look as if you approved that sort of thing (imagine Krum had transformed everything but his head: he would've probably suffocated), especially if you're supposed to be supervising a *safe* competition. On the same line, have you noticed how the form you adopt (when not being an animagi) transforms the transfigurator's thoughts? Victor tries to *chew* through the ropes tying Hermione, instead of using his hands, which is the sort of thing a shark would so, and Draco was very ferret-like when transformed by Crouch!Moody. Interesting comparation to the mental process of transformed animagi, which -according to Sirius's story- have the feelings of the animal, but -according to FB& WTFT- the clear reasoning of the human. Hope that helps, Grey Wolf From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Tue Aug 13 21:54:48 2002 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (bboy_mn) Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 21:54:48 -0000 Subject: Krum In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42588 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "grey_wolf_c" wrote: > bboy_mn wrote: > > Viktor: > > Off on a totally different topic. I think Viktor should have gotten > > full marks for his Human to Shark transformation. Actually, in my > > opinion, he did it perfect; he transformed his head, so he could > > breath under water, yet left his body intact so he still had hands. > > Problem with being a complete shark is, you can't pick things up and > > carry them. So, I think he did it just right. > > > > bboy_mn Grey Wold (cool name) Replied: > > Here, I have to digress. Just like in an exam, getting a correct > answer with the wrong method must be penalized. In a math exam, > getting the correct answer by having two opposing errors (the > second happens to mend the first; it happens pretty often) won't > get you full marks (or it shouldn't!). Thus, getting the appropiate > effect with the wrong spell musn't be rewarded, either. That sort > of error can cause *big* problems, and you don't want to look as > if you approved that sort of thing (imagine Krum had transformed > everything but his head: he would've probably suffocated), > especially if you're supposed to be supervising a *safe* > competition. > > On the same line, have you noticed how the form you adopt (when > not being an animagi) transforms the transfigurator's thoughts? > Victor tries to *chew* through the ropes tying Hermione, instead of > using his hands, which is the sort of thing a shark would so, and > Draco was very ferret-like when transformed by Crouch!Moody. > Interesting comparation to the mental process of transformed > animagi, which -according to Sirius's story- have the feelings of > the animal, but -according to FB& WTFT- the clear reasoning of the > human. > > Hope that helps, > > Grey Wolf bboy_mn picks nits (nitpicking: get it?): Grading: Viktor was not being tested on his ability to transfure himself. He was being graded on his effectiveness at getting something/someone out from the bottom of the lake. If he had tranfigured his lower body; it would have been over. He would have failed miserably. He may have been able to swim like shark, but he cetainly can't hold his breath for an hour. ANd, he wouldn't be able to hold his wand in a sharks fin. So, he would have never gone in the lake. It would have been over on the spot. However, he did transfigure himself in a way that allowed him to breath underwater, have improved underwater vision (something Harry also gained), and still have use of his hands. Next, the ropes; sharks teeth are sharp, human hands are not. Have you ever tried to untie wet soggy slimy rope? Not an easy task. Have you ever tried to untie a knot with your teeth? I sure have. Harry had hands, but he didn't use his hands (directly) to untie the rope, he used a sharp rock to cut the rope which is exactly what Viktor ended up doing. Transfuguration of thoughts, while a person emotions may change to reflect their animal, they certainly do not lose themselves. They still have their original thoughts and emotions (although modified). They retain their intellect and magical ability. Lower animals funcition mostly on instinct, and a dog functioning mostly on instinct would have a hard time accomplishing the things that Sirius or for that matter Skeeter accomplished. So, I don't argue that there isn't some change in the character of a person who becomes an animal, but I don't see that that character came into play at all. So on altered emotion and retained intellect, we are in genreal agreement. Draco did not act ferret-like unless the normal nature of ferrets is to bounce around hallways. Draco had the characteristics of a ferret (or other general rodents) before he was transformed. I think that's why Moody selected a ferret, because it was an animal that suited Draco. I'm mean, the guy has always been a twitchy little ferret in my book. So while I can't deny your opinion, it hasn't been enough to sway me from mine. Vitor's tranformation left him in excellent shape to accomplish the task. Also, no one ever bothered to ask him if that is what he intended to do. He MAY have performed the transfiguration exactly the way he planned it, but the judges didn't recognise that. bboy_mn From rvotaw at i-55.com Tue Aug 13 22:08:16 2002 From: rvotaw at i-55.com (Richelle Votaw) Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 17:08:16 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] The Importance of Being Neville (was Re: who is who--trio vs maruauders) References: Message-ID: <005801c24315$ed947960$5ba3cdd1@istu757> No: HPFGUIDX 42589 Fyre wood writes: > There is a reason why Neville was placed into Gryffindor, and it > wasn't to stand up to the Gryffindor Trio in their first year. No, > his importance is still needed..... just *what* it is going to be.. > we don't know. > > I have a feeling he's going to either save the day, or die while > trying to protect everyone. He's going to discover his ability to > conjure spells and other wizard-like things. Perhaps he'll be the > hero with his Herbology skillz (yes with a "z").. or perhaps he'll > try and do something foolish to save everyone and die. I would like to think that while there are parallels between present students at Hogwarts and past students, there are decisions to be made that may separate them from their predecessors. Perhaps a time will come when Neville can a) betray Harry and co. or b) get help and fight for them. If he chooses b he may die, but a noble death is surely better than being a traitor. There are other parallells, for example Tom Riddle and Harry. Riddle kindly described the similarites for us in COS, so I won't go into detail on that here. However, there are key moments when their fates separate. The key moment that comes to mind is when Draco first introduces himself to Harry and offers to help him not make friends with the wrong sort. At this point if Harry had said thanks, catch you later, etc. I think the sorting hat would've put him in Slytherin and shuffled him off with that crowd. Instead, he said no thanks, I can tell the wrong sort myself, shuts the door on any friendship with Draco and is promptly separated from a further Riddle parallel. In my opinion, anyway. Richelle From speedygonzo242 at hotmail.com Tue Aug 13 22:14:08 2002 From: speedygonzo242 at hotmail.com (frankielee242) Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 22:14:08 -0000 Subject: The Importance of Being Neville (was Re: who is who--trio vs maruauders) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42590 Darrin wrote: > I wonder what Neville's reaction will be when he finds out for sure, > if he doesn't know the entire truth now. > > My guess is he will be angry, vengeful and full of hate. In other > words, damned easy to manipulate. > > Do I believe in Evil!Neville? No, I don't. > > But Misguided!Neville? > > Absolutely. Neville reminds me of a seed. He's round and small. Soon he's going to sprout... I agree completely with Darrin about the possibility that Neville will turn out to be a very angry and vengeful young man. What interests me most about Misguided!Neville is finding out who will get to do the manipulating. McGonagall has stood aside and allowed Snape to climb into Neville's head with a metaphorical crowbar for the past four years-- don't tell me she doesn't know what's going on! What if they (either or both) are banking on the fact that soon Neville will break through the memory charms (or learn the whole story) and SNAP. Sort of like a Manchurian Candidate in a very loose way. Or possibly like the Emperor telling Luke Skywalker to give into his hate. Frankie, who would like to sincerely apologize for the Star Wars reference. It's ment only as a rough example, not a direct parallel. From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Tue Aug 13 23:47:46 2002 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (bboy_mn) Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 23:47:46 -0000 Subject: OT (but short): Brit Food Guide Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42591 Spotted Dick? Black pudding? Blancmange? Chipolata? Why can't these people learn to speak English? (or at least American) http://www.effingpot.com/food.html Here is a great simple easy to use guide to all that strange British food. I know it's off topic, but I certainly think it will make it easier to understand the books. Steak and Kidney pie? Yeeeek! bboy_mn (who begs forgivens for his off-postiness) From siriuskase at earthlink.net Wed Aug 14 00:24:34 2002 From: siriuskase at earthlink.net (siriuskase) Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 00:24:34 -0000 Subject: Slightly OT: Thoughts on Apparation In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42592 I was eavesdropping: > > BBOY_MN Originally said: > > > > > > Honor Among Thieves- > > > How is anything safe from theft in the magic world? You > > > could just pop into the local jewlery store, fill your pockets, > > > and pop out. Stores and shops may have some enchantments, > > > but I would assume that during business hours, legitimate > > > customers would pop in and out all the time. As far as peoples > > > homes, it would seem very easy to rob them. They may have > > > antiapparation enchantments, but that would also stop > > > you from apparating into and out of your own home. > > Marianne, queen of the deadbolts Replied: > > > > Well, not necessarily. Why couldn't one set up anti-apparation > > enchantments that keep everyone out except whoever the family in > > question wants to let in? My enchantments can be set up to keep you > > out, but my husband/adult children can apparate in. And, since I > > trust several friends with my life and my jewelry, I can set up the > > enchantments to allow them in, too, in the same way my Muggle self > > can hand over a key to the front door. > > > > And if I want to make people walk through the door into my shop and > > not apparate into the back room and steal my stock, my anti- > > apparation devices can be set up to do that. > > > > But, then that makes me think. Can a powerful wizard overcome > > whatever enchantments a weaker wizard puts on his/her house? Or are > > there other ways around it? In GOF Sirius tells Harry he's broken > > into a wizard home to use their fireplace for the 1:00 AM > > head-in-the-fireplace talk. If, as I've always assumed (sorry I > > can't quote canon here because I simply don't remember it, if it > > exists) one needs a wand to apparate, then Sirius had some other > > way to break into the house. And, if that's the case, what good > > is an anti-apparation charm if someone can just pick your locks > > or jimmy your window open? Or was this a trusting wizard family > > that felt that their neighborhood was a safe one and they didn't > > need any complicated locking/protective wards? > > > > Marianne, queen of the deadbolts > > To Which bboy_mn replies: > Selective anti-apparation- > True there could be selective anti-appparation charms but I don't > think we've seen any examples of charms that are that selelctive. But > then we are dealing with magic, so anything is possible. > > While you don't come right out and say it, you seem to assume and > intelligent anti-apparation charm, more like a clarvoiant charm, one > that can read your mind and tell who you will and will not allow in at > any given time. > > Sirius, general security, and the break-in- > It's possible that Sirius literally broke into this place the same way > you break into a muggle house. > Which started me thinking: The act of apparation is difficult and dangerous but surely it doesn't need this collection of intelligent countercharms to make it useable in wizard society. A polite wizard would apparate from doorstep to doorstep and never show up unannounced in someone's living room. I'm not even sure that it would be possible for a rude wizard or even the home owner wizard to apparate through walls. I don't recall ever seeing a cannon example of apparation through walls. Most that we've seen has been out of doors - they used the forest at the World Cup - or inside the Weasley's house. Come to think of it, Arthur just kinda popped up in the living room at the end of a hard night, didn't he? I don't recall any mention of the state of the door, so it was probably closed. Does that blow my theory that you can't apparate through closed doors? Any other examples? Sirius Kase From gandharvika at hotmail.com Tue Aug 13 20:33:39 2002 From: gandharvika at hotmail.com (Gail Bohacek) Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 20:33:39 +0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Ticket to ride - no wands necessary Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42593 Felicia asked: >Would a wand be necessary to focus wizarding power or would an >experienced wizard be able to focus the necessary energy without it. >By way of example, we can all run for the bus, but only athletes like >Dwain Chambers and Maurice Green can run under 10 seconds and get >gold medals. And I reply: I don't have any books in front of me, but I seem to remember in PoA that Dumbledore claps his hands (or something to that effect), and causes a bunch of purple sleeping bags to appear in the Great Hall. Maybe when a witch or wizard becomes as powerful as Dumbledore, you might not need wands for certain "simple" spells. Maybe age might have something to do with it? >Certification is necessary before a wizard is formally allowed to >apparate as, it is, and this canon does confirm, dangerous for the >inexperienced. That's why I imagine Howarts reminding students after the school year is over, that they are not allowed to use magic over the summer; young wizards/witches-in-training are not as experienced and thus could cause a whole lot of trouble, for themselves as well as others. -Gail B. _________________________________________________________________ Join the worlds largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com From bdmorrp at budget.state.ny.us Tue Aug 13 20:36:19 2002 From: bdmorrp at budget.state.ny.us (erisedstraeh2002) Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 20:36:19 -0000 Subject: Latin in Harry Potter In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42594 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "dragonettefish" wrote: > In one of Rowlings chat sessions she said something to the effect > of if you look up names and spells in Harry Potter you may learn > something or know more about the characters or something like > that. Well, I looked on the internet for places you can translate > Latin to English and I found several but you had to know how to > seperate roots of words and I dont know how. I was wondering if > anyone did or knew a good site for finding out information for that > or a good latin site. Thanks! Hi, dragonettefish - There are two great sites for info on the origins and meanings of words in the Harry Potter universe: http://www.theninemuses.net/hp/ http:/www.harrypotterfans.net/potterica/index.html Cheers, Phyllis From fyredriftwood at yahoo.com Tue Aug 13 22:32:26 2002 From: fyredriftwood at yahoo.com (fyredriftwood) Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 22:32:26 -0000 Subject: The Importance of Being Neville (was Re: who is who--trio vs maruauders) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42595 Darrin (who gets no special title this time) typed out: > I'm not entirely convinced his contributions will be for good. We are > not entirely sure if Neville knows exactly how his parents became the > vegetables they are. It has been speculated that his general bumbling > nature is related to a Memory Charm that is meant to shield him from > the worst of the memory of his parents' fate. > > I wonder what Neville's reaction will be when he finds out for sure, > if he doesn't know the entire truth now. > > My guess is he will be angry, vengeful and full of hate. In other > words, damned easy to manipulate. > > Do I believe in Evil!Neville? No, I don't. > > But Misguided!Neville? > > Absolutely. > My Turn =) I think Neville does know about his past and everything that came to be. How else would he have known about the curse that hurt his parents? Remember how he volunteered to name a curse in GoF and it surprised everyone? He also sees his parents every holiday from school, but they don't recognize him. Dealing with parents who barely recognize you and being raised with high expectations from Grandparents to succeed, no wonder why Neville is clumsy and has no self confidence. No one has ever said "hey, Neville.. you did a really great job! Have a cookie!!" For him to receive those ten points from Dumbledore during book 1 was a huge shock to him--probably the most emotional high he'd ever received. I think he'll eventually have a talk with Harry about his past and maybe he'll be able to finally lose the pressures and fears he has of magic. Maybe he feels that if he's a "good wizard" (interpret that any way you want), that the incident that happend to his parents will happen to him. Just some food for thought... Darrin also wrote: > Um, have you READ my stuff attacking Slytherin and Draco? You ought > to read it before you call me nice names. You might change your > mind ;) I replied with: Yes I have read it. While I do not agree totally with it, I must say to each his own opinion and what you have is nicely thought out to say the very least. You are not right, and neither am I. For our opinions are only right in our own minds =) (OH lord, I'm turning into a Hufflepuff... oh the horror!) --Fyre Wood, who really thinks that Neville is a cutie =) From drednort at alphalink.com.au Tue Aug 13 23:40:15 2002 From: drednort at alphalink.com.au (Shaun Hately) Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 09:40:15 +1000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Gringrotts Security In-Reply-To: <00db01c242ca$35d0d260$193568d5@xxx> Message-ID: <3D5A257F.4906.29B717@localhost> No: HPFGUIDX 42596 > Yoris wrote: > "On the end of PoA Sirius writes in a letter to harry, he tells him "i used > your name but told them to take the gold from Gringotts vault number seven > hundred and eleven - my own." > How could Sirius use Harry's name to acces his own vault? because for the > people in the bank it would seem like Harry asking money from SOMEONE ELSES > account, and why would they grant such a request?" I thought about this - and here's a possible solution I came up with. Just speculation of course. Sirius was Harry's godfather. It's certainly possible he may have left Harry his money in a 'will' or some other legal document (a will isn't the best choice as he's still alive - but there could be some legal mechanism that allowed his money to be passed on to Harry if certain events occurred - such as his death, incapacitation, or imprisonment). Perhaps Harry has had a legal right to Sirius' money since Sirius was sent to Azkaban. An alternative - perhaps given the Wizarding world's apparent retention of old customs, some sort of 'danegeld' situation applies - Harry has a right to Sirius' assets because Sirius was involved in the death of his parents (maybe Voldemort's fortune is kicking around in a vault somewhere as well - waiting for Harry to claim it... making Harry a kind of Heir to Voldemort...) In that case, it's possible that the money wasn't moved to Harry's vault because there was a stigma attached to it - maybe somebody decided that Harry might not want money that came from a Death Eater who had apparently murdered innocents in an effort to escape responsibility for the death of Harry's parents - the money was legally his, but somebody decided that it should be his decision - when he was old enough - whether to take it, or not. Sirius knowing this, may have written a letter in Harry's name asserting his right to the money. Just a possibility. Yours Without Wax, Dreadnought Shaun Hately |webpage: http://www.alphalink.com.au/~drednort/thelab.html (ISTJ) |email: drednort at alphalink.com.au | ICQ: 6898200 "You know the very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. They don't alter their views to fit the facts. They alter the facts to fit the views. Which can be uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that need altering." The Doctor - Doctor Who: The Face of Evil | Where am I: Frankston, Victoria, Australia From rsteph1981 at yahoo.com Tue Aug 13 23:43:22 2002 From: rsteph1981 at yahoo.com (rsteph1981) Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 23:43:22 -0000 Subject: Logic and Math of Sexism (WAS Article) In-Reply-To: <151.10f3d4d9.2a66a477@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42597 Well, the way girls are presented sometimes irritates me as well. I'm actually less irritated by Harry's view during GoF (because girls do talk about who has asked them to dances) and because Harry is likely exagerrating because he hasn't had the nerve or opportunity to approach Cho and is irritated. What bugs me more is all the references to girls screaming and gasping. If the boys start, the girls scream. The first example that comes to mind (without the books in front of me) is in PS when Harry's after the rememberall. And it happens several other times. Makes it seem like the girls are more fearful than the boys, and that just doesn't cut it with me. Rebecca From primroseburrows at yahoo.com Wed Aug 14 00:13:24 2002 From: primroseburrows at yahoo.com (Primrose Burrows) Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 17:13:24 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] The Importance of Being Neville (was Re: who is who--trio vs maruauders) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020814001324.18078.qmail@web12907.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 42598 fyredriftwood wrote: However, Neville's past history has been told--making him a major character now. Only the major characters have had their pasts told to us... and now he's one of them.... I just wish I knew *what* his destiny is! I've never thought about Neville in this light before. Interesting to note, we now know more about Neville's past than we do about Draco Malfoy. I'm not sure if this means that Neville will be a bigger player than Draco, but it's something to think about. --Fyre Wood, the Death Eater who is a Draco Malfoy fanatic, hates Pansy Parkinson, and worships the ground that Voldy walks on. ~primrose, who is also a Draco Malfoy fanatic, jury's still out on Pansy, and doesn't like Voldy much. --------------------------------- Do You Yahoo!? HotJobs, a Yahoo! service - Search Thousands of New Jobs [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From niemuthervin at worldnet.att.net Wed Aug 14 00:43:50 2002 From: niemuthervin at worldnet.att.net (animagi_raven) Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 00:43:50 -0000 Subject: Number at Hogwarts Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42599 I am new to the books (only read them once so far) but I thought that I would throw this into the mix: I myself think that the number of student must be around 300 with a maximum of about 600. I get this by: 5 boys per dorm room *2 for the girls *4 houses *7 years but it does not say that there is *only* one dorm room per year. (Well I seem to remember implication in several place with 'the boys _-year dorm'.) But say that there could be 2 rooms per sex per year and you can get up to 600. The description of the common rooms also preclude a much larger population (would be bigger, noisier). I don't have access to the exact quote by JKR but what if 1000 is the approximate number of beings (students, teachers, ghosts, creatures in the Forbidden Forest, etc?) at Hogwarts? Mull that over for a while. Maybe that will satisfy enough people that we can move onto the important things like: How do owls (and tropical birds, too) find the people that they are looking to deliver mail to? Does the Ford Anglia need gas now? Where is Hagrid storing Sirius's motorcycle? What happened to James and Lily's wands? How does the Marauder's Map know your name? Why would *anyone* sell blood-flavored candy? Personally, I think she just picked that number during an interview and hadn't really thought about it before. The way we put everything under a microscope, I bet she really avoids the press in the future. "animagi raven" ---------- Look for a problem and you will find one. Look for a solution and you will find one. Look for your car keys and they are nowhere to be found... From the.gremlin at verizon.net Wed Aug 14 01:04:26 2002 From: the.gremlin at verizon.net (ats_fhc3) Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 01:04:26 -0000 Subject: Snape's House Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42600 I'm not sure if this topic has been brought up before, but seeing as how my boyfriend and I are debating this, I though I might as well ask. We are debating as to what house Snape might have been in. Logically, he was most likely in Slytherin, but I am lookin for evidence that he wasn't. My boyfriend as pointed out Sirius's remark about Snape in GoF: "...and he was part of a gang of Slytherins who nearly all turned out to be Death Eaters" (pg. 531). I told him that this doesn't necessarily mean Snape was in Slytherin, and he could have been in Ravenclaw and hung out with Slytherins. Does anyone else have evidence supporting or debunking this? "the gremlin" From jasnyder at intrex.net Wed Aug 14 02:52:35 2002 From: jasnyder at intrex.net (Jen Snyder) Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 21:52:35 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Latin in Harry Potter In-Reply-To: <00ae01c242d2$5bf455e0$8fa0cdd1@istu757> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42601 > I did find it interesting that I can get a loose translation of Avada > Kedavra by substituting a c (which makes the k sound) for the k and breaking > it apart into root words. Even though it's supposed to be aramic, the latin > comes out to something like "to give in to greed." Which does make sense, > because what greater form of greed is there than to take someone's life? > And by giving in to the greed, you die. Okay, I'll stop now. :) > Richelle I also think Avada Kedavra was chosen for it's close similarity to "Abracadabra", the traditional magician's incantation. Jen 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 rvotaw at i-55.com Wed Aug 14 02:14:17 2002 From: rvotaw at i-55.com (Richelle Votaw) Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 21:14:17 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] The Importance of Being Neville (was Re: who is who--trio vs maruauders) References: Message-ID: <002e01c24338$4be4a360$8a9ccdd1@istu757> No: HPFGUIDX 42602 Fyre Wood writes: > I think Neville does know about his past and everything that came to > be. How else would he have known about the curse that hurt his > parents? Remember how he volunteered to name a curse in GoF and it > surprised everyone? He also sees his parents every holiday from > school, but they don't recognize him. I think he knows everything, but has been memory charmed (or something similar) *if* he was present at the torturing session. For a small child that would have been way too traumatic to "get over." I think he was told what happened when he was old enough to deal with it. So yes, he knows about the Cruciatus curse. And remember his reaction when Moody/Crouch performed it on the spider? "Neville's hands were clenched upon the desk in front of him, his knuckles white, his eyes wide and horrified." This makes me think that he had never seen the Cruciatus curse performed (or been memory spelled if he had) and was seeing for the first time what his parents experienced, although only on a spider. Harry, I don't think knew that the AK was how his parents died until after Moody/Crouch AK's the spider and says the only known person to survive it is sitting in front of him. > Dealing with parents who barely recognize you and being raised with Not barely--they don't recognize him at all. According to Dumbledore. > high expectations from Grandparents to succeed, no wonder why Neville > is clumsy and has no self confidence. No one has ever said "hey, > Neville.. you did a really great job! Have a cookie!!" For him to > receive those ten points from Dumbledore during book 1 was a huge > shock to him--probably the most emotional high he'd ever received. Don't forget, Harry told Neville he was worth twelve of Malfoy and gave him a chocolate frog. :) I always thought that was very sweet. > I think he'll eventually have a talk with Harry about his past and > maybe he'll be able to finally lose the pressures and fears he has of > magic. Maybe he feels that if he's a "good wizard" (interpret that > any way you want), that the incident that happend to his parents will > happen to him. I think eventually Neville will face a huge decision. Either to betray his friends and save himself or stand up and fight for them and risk his life. I believe he will choose to fight (whether Voldemort or a death eater I don't know) and possibly die. This is where the similarities between he and Peter will cease. Neville will choose the right road, even if it means death, whereas Peter chose the wrong road. When and if Neville does die, I will probably cry. Poor little Neville. I know, I kill everybody off. But I figure if I'm prepared it won't come as such a shock when JKR starts letting people die left and right! Richelle From bard7696 at aol.com Wed Aug 14 02:12:38 2002 From: bard7696 at aol.com (darrin_burnett) Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 02:12:38 -0000 Subject: Number at Hogwarts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42603 Animagi Raven (great name, by the way) wrote: > I don't have access to the exact quote by JKR but what if 1000 is the approximate number of beings (students, teachers, ghosts, creatures in the Forbidden Forest, etc?) at Hogwarts? Mull that over for a while. I doubt it will satisfy anyone who really wants to make an issue of this 1000 versus 250 business, mainly because we only know of about a dozen teachers and six ghosts. Maybe if we counted owls and other pets, not to mention all those Flobbyworms. Maybe that will satisfy enough people that we can move onto the important things like: > How do owls (and tropical birds, too) find the people that they are > looking to deliver mail to? Magic. Not being snarky here, but that really is the explanation. I mean, how does a Howler work? Magic. That's how the owls manage it too. > Does the Ford Anglia need gas now? Um... anyone else? > Where is Hagrid storing Sirius's motorcycle? Ooooh... now that's a good question. I bet it's around somewhere, that is, if it wasn't confiscated by the Ministry of Magic after Sirius was arrested. I'd love to see it make a return appearance. > What happened to James and Lily's wands? Well, we know wands can be physically damaged (Ron and Hagrid's both were broken, one by accident, one intentionally) and the AK spell rebounding literally brought the house down, so it is possible the wands were destroyed. OR... perhaps James or Lily's wands, or both, will make return appearances, which helps get around that "brother wand causing Priori Incanteum" thing. > How does the Marauder's Map know your name? Magic. :) > Why would *anyone* sell blood-flavored candy? We know that goblins, elves, giants and werewolves exist in HP, so why not vampires? There has to be some kind of demand for blood- related products, just as there are likely plus-sized haberdasheries and boutiques for Hagrid and Madame Maxime. Darrin -- Wonder how many miles that Ford gets to the gallon? From rvotaw at i-55.com Wed Aug 14 02:18:00 2002 From: rvotaw at i-55.com (Richelle Votaw) Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 21:18:00 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Snape's House References: Message-ID: <004f01c24338$d061dfe0$8a9ccdd1@istu757> No: HPFGUIDX 42604 "the gremlin" writes: > We are debating as to what house Snape might have been in. > Logically, he was most likely in Slytherin, but I am lookin for > evidence that he wasn't. My boyfriend as pointed out Sirius's remark > about Snape in GoF: "...and he was part of a gang of Slytherins who > nearly all turned out to be Death Eaters" (pg. 531). I told him that > this doesn't necessarily mean Snape was in Slytherin, and he could > have been in Ravenclaw and hung out with Slytherins. > Does anyone else have evidence supporting or debunking this? Well, I don't see how you can be "part of a gang of Slytherins" without being a Slytherin. If Snape had not been a Slytherin it would have read "ran with a gang of Slytherins." But it says "part of a gang of Slytherins" which means he *was* a Slytherin unless there's a huge error in the wording. The only possible way he could've not been in Slytherin his entire time was if the possibility of resorting is brought into play. But there's no evidence that one can be resorted and moved to another house. Richelle From rvotaw at i-55.com Wed Aug 14 02:43:07 2002 From: rvotaw at i-55.com (Richelle Votaw) Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 21:43:07 -0500 Subject: Latin in Harry Potter--Arabella Figg Message-ID: <001101c2433c$52f23920$4fa2cdd1@istu757> No: HPFGUIDX 42605 Okay, I may be going overboard with this Latin thing, but still this is pretty cool. First, I looked up "ara." It means sanctuary. Next, bella. It could come from one of these root words: bellatrix = female warrior belliger = waging war bello = fight bellum = combat belua = monster Take your pick, any of them fits in and makes sense. Now, here's the really cool part. Take her last name, Figg. In Latin it would probably come from one of these two words: figo = establish (that would make sense, she established a sanctuary and was there to wage war if necessary) figulus = potter Whoa! Could she have changed her name to avoid association and become Arabella Figg instead of Arabella Potter? Is she Harry's great aunt? Grandmother? Great grandmother? Wait! Don't throw anything yet. Let me defend my wild theory for a moment. 1) The Dursleys more than likely would not know any of James Potter's family, right? Right. 2) She may not have appeared with Harry's family in the Mirror of Erised, as Dumbledore told Harry "the mirror will give us neither knowledge nor truth." Okay, I'm admitting it's a really wild theory, but I'm rather fond of wild theories. I think I'll start writing all of my wild theories down, one of them's bound to be right! :) Richelle ------------------------------------ Richelle R. Votaw 1st grade teacher Kentwood Elementary ------------------------------------ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From jasnyder at intrex.net Wed Aug 14 03:14:23 2002 From: jasnyder at intrex.net (Jen Snyder) Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 22:14:23 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Ticket to ride - no wands necessary In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42606 >I don't have any books in front of me, but I seem to remember in PoA that >Dumbledore claps his hands (or something to that effect), and causes a bunch >of purple sleeping bags to appear in the Great Hall. >-Gail B. He also claps his hands to change the banners in the Great Hall from Slytherin to Gryffindor at the end of PS/SS. Jen From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Wed Aug 14 03:29:35 2002 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (bboy_mn) Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 03:29:35 -0000 Subject: Logic and Math of Sexism (WAS Article) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42607 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "rsteph1981" wrote: > Well, the way girls are presented sometimes irritates me as well. > I'm actually less irritated by Harry's view during GoF (because > girls do talk about who has asked them to dances) and because > Harry is likely exagerrating because he hasn't had the nerve or > opportunity to approach Cho and is irritated. > > What bugs me more is all the references to girls screaming and > gasping. If the boys start, the girls scream. The first example > that comes to mind (without the books in front of me) is in PS > when Harry's after the rememberall. And it happens several other > times. Makes it seem like the girls are more fearful than the > boys, and that just doesn't cut it with me. > > > Rebecca bboy_mn comnnents: Stereotypes are based in reality. Girls do scream more than guys, that's reality as I know it. But that doesn't mean girls are more fearful than guys, only more vocal under those circumstances. There are other circumstance where guys are more vocal which I'm sure annoys a lot of people and which I'm sure some people would consider an unfair stereotype of guys. But these are still reality. In addition, these are all common plot devices. In any scary movie, what happen the first time the monster is seen; a woman screams. What happens when a group of people come upon a gruesome death seen; a womans screams. Although women are somewhat more likely to scream in that situation; it's used in movies because a woman's scream is very loud and piercing. That intensity increases the shock value. Away from movies and back to books, to some extent it is still a plot device; it's a way for the author to create a visualization of an event, and while fiction, that visualization has to ring true to people preception and expectations of reality, and has to effectively convey a mood or feeling. So, I personally don't see those examples you sited as portraying girl in a weak or negative light. bboy_mn From Zarleycat at aol.com Wed Aug 14 03:36:12 2002 From: Zarleycat at aol.com (kiricat2001) Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 03:36:12 -0000 Subject: Ticket to ride - no wands necessary In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42608 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "feliciarickmann" wrote: > > If, as I've always assumed (sorry I > > > can't quote canon here because I simply don't remember it, if it > > > exists) one needs a wand to apparate, ...........? > > > > > > Marianne, queen of the deadbolts > > > Can someone confirm that a wand IS definitely needed to apparate. I > do not remember anything that that effect in canon. Not to cast > aspertions on Marianne, it's just that I know that seems to have been > no *apparations* as such only floo powder, portkeys and the like. > > Would a wand be necessary to focus wazarding power or would an > experienced wizard be able to focus the necessary energy without it. > By way of example, we can all run for the bus, but only athletes like > Dwain Chambers and Maurice Green can run under 10 seconds and get > gold medals. Well, no, I can't recall that anything in canon says "One must have a wand to Apparate." But, if an experienced wizard is able to do so without a wand, why is Sirius still relying on Buckbeak for travel in GoF, when Apparation would be quicker. Especially when he is obviously concerned about Harry once he finds out that Harry's scar is hurting? I can understand at the end of PoA that Sirius needs some assistance in getting out of Hogwarts because 1) you can't Apparate into or out of Hogwarts and 2) Sirius is probably not up to normal wizard snuff at that point. But, months later, when Harry himself sees that Sirius looks healthier, has gained some weight, doesn't look like the fright- show he was in the Shrieking Shack, - you'd think this would be an indication from JKR that he's physically okay. But, is he apparating? No, he's apparently still flying about on Buckbeak. So, that leaves me with several choices: 1) A wand is necessary for Apparation. If a wand is not necessary, then why is Sirius, a bright Hogwarts student, apparently not not using apparation for travel? 1) Sirius, like other experienced wizards, can apparate perfectly well without a wand, but feels an obligation to not leave Buckbeak to fend for himself, so rather than safely Apparate unseen from place to place, he stays with the hippogryff. 2) Apparation can be detected or monitored by the MoM, so Sirius cannot do so for his own safety. 3) Sirius is not a powerful enough wizard to managed Apparation without the aid of a wand. I'm sure there are other possibilities that could explain this, but that's all I can deal with right now. Marianne From psychchick04 at yahoo.com Wed Aug 14 03:55:32 2002 From: psychchick04 at yahoo.com (Jacqueline Hendries) Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 20:55:32 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Snape's House In-Reply-To: <004f01c24338$d061dfe0$8a9ccdd1@istu757> Message-ID: <20020814035532.48719.qmail@web9207.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 42609 > "the gremlin" writes: > > > We are debating as to what house Snape might have been in. > > Logically, he was most likely in Slytherin, but I am lookin for > > evidence that he wasn't. My boyfriend as pointed out Sirius's > remark > > about Snape in GoF: "...and he was part of a gang of Slytherins who > > nearly all turned out to be Death Eaters" (pg. 531). I told him > that > > this doesn't necessarily mean Snape was in Slytherin, and he could > > have been in Ravenclaw and hung out with Slytherins. > > Does anyone else have evidence supporting or debunking this? And Richelle responded: > Well, I don't see how you can be "part of a gang of Slytherins" > without > being a Slytherin. If Snape had not been a Slytherin it would have > read > "ran with a gang of Slytherins." But it says "part of a gang of > Slytherins" > which means he *was* a Slytherin unless there's a huge error in the > wording. > The only possible way he could've not been in Slytherin his entire > time was > if the possibility of resorting is brought into play. But there's no > evidence that one can be resorted and moved to another house. Now my two knuts: I agree with Richelle. Besides this, I think it's highly unlikely that Snape would be made Head of Slytherin house (particularly at such a young age) and show them so much favouritism if he had not been a Slytherin himself. We've debated Snape's house (along with what house each of the Marauders was in), and I really think common sense has to rule with these. Snape was a Slyth, and the Marauders were probably all Gryffindors. Actually, I speculate that Pettigrew may not have been, as he doesn't seem to show much of that Gryffindor courage... but I'm pretty sure he wasn't a Slytherin, and he doesn't seem to fit any of the other houses, either. Which brings me to another point - what could PP have done that was courageous enough to merit being sorted into Gryffindor? Or does the Hat only asses your potential? Hmm... ~ Aloha Moira, who enjoys contradicting herself ===== also known as Aloha Moira Read Potters, A History - Chapter 9 is coming soon to a Schnoogle near you! www.schnoogle.com/authorLinks/Aloha_Moira/Potters_A_History __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? HotJobs - Search Thousands of New Jobs http://www.hotjobs.com From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Wed Aug 14 04:26:45 2002 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (bboy_mn) Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 04:26:45 -0000 Subject: Ticket to ride - no wands necessary In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42610 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "kiricat2001" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "feliciarickmann" > wrote: Marianne, queen of the deadbolts Wrote: If, as I've always assumed (sorry I can't quote canon here because I simply don't remember it, if it exists) one needs a wand to apparate, ...........? END Marianne, queen of the deadbolts Felicia Replied (in part): Can someone confirm that a wand IS definitely needed to apparate. I do not remember anything that that effect in canon. Not to cast aspertions on Marianne, it's just that I know that seems to have been no *apparations* as such only floo powder, portkeys and the > like. END Felicia Marianne fired back: > > Well, no, I can't recall that anything in canon says "One must have a > wand to Apparate." But, if an experienced wizard is able to do so > without a wand, why is Sirius still relying on Buckbeak for travel in > GoF, when Apparation would be quicker. Especially when he is > obviously concerned about Harry once he finds out that Harry's scar > is hurting? > > I can understand at the end of PoA that Sirius needs some assistance > in getting out of Hogwarts because 1) you can't Apparate into or out > of Hogwarts and 2) Sirius is probably not up to normal wizard snuff > at that point. But, months later, when Harry himself sees that Sirius > looks healthier, has gained some weight, doesn't look like the fright- > show he was in the Shrieking Shack, - you'd think this would be an > indication from JKR that he's physically okay. But, is he > apparating? No, he's apparently still flying about on Buckbeak. > > So, that leaves me with several choices: 1) A wand is necessary for > Apparation. > > If a wand is not necessary, then why is Sirius, a bright Hogwarts > student, apparently not not using apparation for travel? > > 1) Sirius, like other experienced wizards, can apparate perfectly > well without a wand, but feels an obligation to not leave Buckbeak to > fend for himself, so rather than safely Apparate unseen from place to > place, he stays with the hippogryff. 2) Apparation can be detected > or monitored by the MoM, so Sirius cannot do so for his own safety. > 3) Sirius is not a powerful enough wizard to managed Apparation > without the aid of a wand. > > I'm sure there are other possibilities that could explain this, but > that's all I can deal with right now. > > Marianne bboy_mn opens his big mouth: Personally, I don't think wands are needed to Apparate. Wand are a point of focus, they are used when casting spell (charms, curse, etc..). CASTING being the keyword; when you are trying to focus magic outside of yourself on some external act of magic. Apparating, requires mental focus on the location you want to end up at, but all the magic to accomplish the event is internal. Sirirus, the hippogryff, and Apparation- Q: But, if an experienced wizard is able to do so without a wand, why is Sirius still relying on Buckbeak for travel in GoF, when Apparation would be quicker? I know you answered your own question, but I'd like to add some more. Sirius is originally located in West or Central Africa or for my money, in Asia somewhere (Thailand or Malasyia, possibley India are my best bets) based on the fact that he is sending large tropical birds with mail to Harry. There is a limit to how far you can apparate. My personal guess is that a common but very good wizard can apparate consistendly for over a distance of 500 kilometers (about 300 miles, again just my personal estimation). That means you can go from London to Paris but you can't go from London to Hogwarts (both Glasgow and Edinburgh are more than 500km from London). So there is no way Sirius can apparate from Morocco or Thailand. But if arctic tern can fly from the Arctic to the Antarctic and Monarch butterflys can fly from Minnesota to Mexico and S.America then Buckbeak can certainly cover the distance. When Harry saw Sirius in the fire, he looked good (or at least a lot better), but when he saw him in the cave at Hogsmead, he looked really bad again, so his abilities may have still been limited by stress. I also think that Sirius feels some obligation to look after Buckbeak. (As you pointed out.) Once he is at Hogsmeed, he probably can apparate short distances, but he doesn't have anywhere to go. Hogsmead/Hogwarts is where he wants to and has to be, so where is he going to apparate to? Also, he can't risk allowing himself to be seen, so it is safer for him to move around as a lovable stray dog, than to apparate around in human form. This brings up a NEW QUESTION? Q: Can animagi apparate while they are in animal form? Of course, we don't really know, but it's still an interesting question. Personally, I think not. That's my story and I'm sticking to it. bboy_mn From eloiseherisson at aol.com Wed Aug 14 06:39:27 2002 From: eloiseherisson at aol.com (eloiseherisson at aol.com) Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 02:39:27 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Number at Hogwarts Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42611 Animagi raven considers the number of students at Hogwarts, >I don't have access to the exact quote by JKR but what if 1000 is the >approximate number of beings (students, teachers, ghosts, creatures >in the Forbidden Forest, etc?) at Hogwarts? Mull that over for a >while. Eloise: The number of students at Hogwarts is one of those old chestnuts to which there seems to be no satisfactory answer. The only piece of canon I can think of which is in any way helpful, is in POA, The Qudditch Final, when three quarters of the crowd is described as sporting Gryffindor colours and 200, Slytherin green, which implies that the entire crowd is about 800 people. Of course, we don't know how many of those are students. Do parents and families watch? Possibly, although I personally doubt it (I'm sure there would have been a reference to spotting the Weasleys or something if JKR envisaged that). >Maybe that will satisfy enough people that we can move onto >the important things like: > >How do owls (and tropical birds, too) find the people that they are >looking to deliver mail to? I think they can home into an individual's magical aura, or such like, in the same way as an animal which uses scent can home in an an individual. > Does the Ford Anglia need gas now? I don't think it ever has, since Arthur tinkered with it. Flying to Scotland on one tank would be quite an achievement, especially after they'd already driven to London. > Where is Hagrid storing Sirius's motorcycle? My theory is that, like the Flying Ford Anglia, it is now roaming the Forbidden Forest (I don't think Hagrid would have wanted anything to do with it, once he knew of Sirius' 'guilt'). Honestly, I haven't the foggiest. I think he's got rid of it, but I enjoy the fantasy of it forming a liaison with the Anglia and bringing up a little family of motor cycles with side-cars. > What happened to James and Lily's wands? Anybody's guess. I wouldn't be surprised if Dumbledore had them somewhere. OTOH, they could have been retrieved by the MOM, whom I imagine had to remove any magical items from the house before the Muggles got there. >How does the Marauder's Map know your name? It's, um, *magic*. ;-) I don't know. Does anyone? But a Remembrall can tell what's going on in someone's mind (ie, they've forgotten something), a Sneakoscope can tell if someone's intentions are reliable, Moody's Foe Glass can detect an individual's enemies, etc. It seems quite in keeping that an object could be enchanted to know people's names. > > Why would *anyone* sell blood-flavored candy? Vampires are allowed to have sweet teeth (fangs?) too, you know. OK, they don't eat, I know. But there may be other magical types out there with a penchant for blood and in any case, JKR is keeps throwing in little vampire references, which some interpret as hints that Snape is a vampire and others of us vigorously deny. >Look for a problem and you will find one. >Look for a solution and you will find one. >Look for your car keys and they are nowhere to be found... That's because they've had a shrinking spell put on them. I know mine have. Eloise [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From eloiseherisson at aol.com Wed Aug 14 07:59:08 2002 From: eloiseherisson at aol.com (eloiseherisson at aol.com) Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 03:59:08 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Latin in Harry Potter--Arabella Figg Message-ID: <32.2b6ad5b7.2a8b67cc@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 42612 Richelle: > Okay, I may be going overboard with this Latin thing, Just possibly! ;-) but still this is pretty cool. First, I looked up "ara." It means sanctuary. Next, > bella. It could come from one of these root words: > > bellatrix = female warrior > belliger = waging war > bello = fight > bellum = combat > belua = monster > > Take your pick, any of them fits in and makes sense. > > Eloise: Except that you've missed out the really obvious one - bellus, -a, -um, adj., 'beautiful'. 'Ara bella' in Latin would mean 'beautiful altar', or 'beautiful refuge'. Which would be added evidence for those who think she's polyjuiced into her old lady state. (Incidentally, the first four you quote all have the *same* root, don't they?) Richelle: Now, here's the really cool part.> > Take her last name, Figg. In Latin it would probably come from one of > these two words: > > figo = establish (that would make sense, she established a sanctuary and > was there to wage war if necessary) > figulus = potter > > Whoa! Could she have changed her name to avoid association and become > Arabella Figg instead of Arabella Potter? Is she Harry's great aunt? > Grandmother? Great grandmother? Wait! Don't throw anything yet. Let me > defend my wild theory for a moment. 1) The Dursleys more than likely would > not know any of James Potter's family, right? Right. 2) She may not have > appeared with Harry's family in the Mirror of Erised, as Dumbledore told > Harry "the mirror will give us neither knowledge nor truth." > > Eloise: OK. I have two problems: One. Why does *everything* have to be derived from Latin? There are lots of wizards whose names don't have Latin derivations. Two. Dumbledore places Harry with the dreadful Dursleys because they are his *only living relatives* and it is apparently necessary for his protection that he lives with blood relatives. If Arabella is really a Potter, why, in heaven's name, doesn't he have her look after Harry herself (disguising herself as a muggle if necessary, as she has done anyway) instead of having her supervise from afar? Now, as I understand it, Arabella was originally a Scottish variation of Amabel (yes, that's an 'm') which is derived from (L.) amabile (amiable, lovable). Figg? It sounds old, fuddy-duddy, right for the wrinkly, dried-up old lady who probably takes her daily dose of syrup of figs. We only know the Figg part until the end of GOF. Perhaps the Arabella part, if it has any meaning, is our first indication that she's not what she seems. >Okay, I'm admitting it's a really wild theory, but I'm rather fond of wild theories. I think I'll start writing all of my wild >theories down, one of them's bound to be right! :) I love wild theories! Did you ever hear my one about Fourth Man? Actually, I have just done a quick Google search on Figg and found that a lot of other people have come to similar conclusions as you, Richelle, about the derivations. I get a bit, um, boring about these things sometimes, as various people will attest Eloise [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From mikezitz at charter.net Wed Aug 14 03:22:26 2002 From: mikezitz at charter.net (interstate999) Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 03:22:26 -0000 Subject: Arabella Figg, Snape & Lilly In-Reply-To: <001101c2433c$52f23920$4fa2cdd1@istu757> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42613 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Richelle Votaw" wrote: > Okay, I may be going overboard with this Latin thing, but still this is pretty cool. First, I looked up "ara." It means sanctuary. Next, bella. It could come from one of these root words: > > bellatrix = female warrior > belliger = waging war > bello = fight > bellum = combat > belua = monster > > Take your pick, any of them fits in and makes sense. Now, here's the really cool part. > > Take her last name, Figg. In Latin it would probably come from one of these two words: > > figo = establish (that would make sense, she established a sanctuary and was there to wage war if necessary) > figulus = potter > > Whoa! Could she have changed her name to avoid association and become Arabella Figg instead of Arabella Potter? Is she Harry's great aunt? Grandmother? Great grandmother? Wait! Don't throw anything yet. Let me defend my wild theory for a moment. 1) The Dursleys more than likely would not know any of James Potter's family, right? Right. 2) She may not have appeared with Harry's family in the Mirror of Erised, as Dumbledore told Harry "the mirror will give us neither knowledge nor truth." > > Okay, I'm admitting it's a really wild theory, but I'm rather fond of wild theories. I think I'll start writing all of my wild theories down, one of them's bound to be right! :) ------------- Ok I'll buy that. Lets' take it a step further. We know JK likes to play with names and reversing the letters right. Like the Mirror of Erised. Spelled backwards (Desire). Easy enough. Lets try it with another name ... Snape... Epans, change the "p" to "v". Does this seem interesting? Maybe this is why Snape dislikes Harry. Harry represents Snape's sister that was taking from him. Why Voldy didn't have to kill Lilly the night he went to kill Harry? Is this because Lilly Evans Potter was a blood sister of a death eater? Next question, Are they any Brits out there that know if a director and an accountant is the same thing in England? Mike Zitzmann Hammond, LA. From fyredriftwood at yahoo.com Wed Aug 14 04:18:49 2002 From: fyredriftwood at yahoo.com (fyredriftwood) Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 04:18:49 -0000 Subject: The Importance of Being Neville (was Re: who is who--trio vs maruauders) In-Reply-To: <002e01c24338$4be4a360$8a9ccdd1@istu757> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42614 Richelle kindly replied to my post with: >I think eventually Neville will face a huge decision. Either to betray his > friends and save himself or stand up and fight for them and risk his life. > I believe he will choose to fight (whether Voldemort or a death eater I > don't know) and possibly die. This is where the similarities between he > and Peter will cease. Neville will choose the right road, even if it means > death, whereas Peter chose the wrong road. When and if Neville does die, I > will probably cry. Poor little Neville. I know, I kill everybody > off. But I figure if I'm prepared it won't come as such a shock when JKR > starts letting people die left and right! And here are my two sickles worth: I'm a closet Neville Longbottom fangirl, and I will cry too if he dies, but I agree completely with your idea of his two roads he'll have to face. Will he choose the road less traveled by or will he be one of the sheep and follow the path of those before him who have turned evil? I would like him to die a heroes death if he does infact have to die. (This would be the road less traveled by). I think it would be noble and everyone would think highly of him to do that =) --Fyre Wood, who now has a list of 300 things smarter than neville on her website. Oh boy! From ajl at hanson.net Wed Aug 14 04:20:32 2002 From: ajl at hanson.net (dembeldei) Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 04:20:32 -0000 Subject: Krum (and ferret transfiguration) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42615 bboy_mn wrote: "Draco did not act ferret-like unless the normal nature of ferrets is to bounce around hallways. Draco had the characteristics of a ferret (or other general rodents) before he was transformed. I think that's why Moody selected a ferret, because it was an animal that suited Draco. I'm mean, the guy has always been a twitchy little ferret in my book." Coincidentally enough, ferrets DO bounce-- weasels, ferrets, and other mustelids do this bouncy dance when they find prey or a mate or are otherwise happy-- but I have to mention, they are not rodents (nor do they squeak, are you listening JKR?). They are carnivores and were actually used as rodent control. (The Pied Piper was a ferreteer who called his ferrets to chase out the rats.) Anyhow, Draco's personality has never struck me as that of a ferret (they are generally good natured and playful), but I think with the common mention of polecats in the books, this was just a great scene to read... a classic! dembeldei From fyredriftwood at yahoo.com Wed Aug 14 04:25:46 2002 From: fyredriftwood at yahoo.com (fyredriftwood) Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 04:25:46 -0000 Subject: Snape's House In-Reply-To: <004f01c24338$d061dfe0$8a9ccdd1@istu757> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42616 "the gremlin" kindly wrote: (taken from Richelle's post, but I wanted to reply to "the gremlin" and not "Richelle"--sorry, but I have a different opinion =) > > > We are debating as to what house Snape might have been in. > > Logically, he was most likely in Slytherin, but I am lookin for > > evidence that he wasn't. My boyfriend as pointed out Sirius's remark > > about Snape in GoF: "...and he was part of a gang of Slytherins who > > nearly all turned out to be Death Eaters" (pg. 531). I told him that > > this doesn't necessarily mean Snape was in Slytherin, and he could > > have been in Ravenclaw and hung out with Slytherins. > > Does anyone else have evidence supporting or debunking this? > I reply with my two sickles worth: I've always thought that Snape might have been the fifth Gryffindor Boy if he were to have lived in any other house than Slytherin. Think about how hard he might have tried to be part of the Marauders, but never exactly fit in. Wouldn't that be ironic? The quote can be interpreted many different ways. I thought it meant that he was part of a group of Slytherins--but not necessarily a Slytherin. One theme I've seen in Harry Potter is the lack of house integration. I don't see many Gryffindors willingly making friends with Hufflepuffs and vice versa. Only Percy Weasley was the exception since he dated Ravenclaw's Penelope. --Fyre Wood... who wants to know what house Snape was in so she can mock him for it if he was in Gryffindor. From crana at ntlworld.com Wed Aug 14 09:15:15 2002 From: crana at ntlworld.com (rosie) Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 10:15:15 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Arabella Figg, Snape & Lilly References: Message-ID: <007e01c24373$1a6630c0$d2b268d5@xxx> No: HPFGUIDX 42617 Richelle wrote: > Okay, I may be going overboard with this Latin thing, but still this is pretty cool. First, I looked up "ara." It means sanctuary. Next, bella. It could come from one of these root words: > > bellatrix = female warrior > belliger = waging war > bello = fight > bellum = combat These 4 are all words derived from the root word "bellus", war. For example, "trix" is the female form of "tor", which means "someone who does something" (e.g. gladiator) so that just means "war,woman who does". It's not a root word as such. "Ara" can also mean "alter". I believe "bella" really comes from either the Latin or Italian, "bella" meaning "beautiful", or the name has another origin. Those ones were interesting suggestions though...the thing is... you can find Latin derivations for almost any word, even if it actually comes from Sanskrit, and usually make it make sense somehow. Some of them (Draco) seem right on the mark, with others I think Latin isn't quite right. > Take her last name, Figg. In Latin it would probably come from one of these two words: > > figo = establish (that would make sense, she established a sanctuary and was there to wage war if necessary) > figulus = potter For Figg, there's an expression you don't hear much at least in Britain, I think it goes something like "He's having a fig" or whatever and it means that the person is having you on (pretending to be someone or something). That and the "Syrup of Figs" answer make more sense to me if Arabella *is* pretending to be something she isn't. Sorry, I'm not trying to knock you, that did throw up some interesting associated words... I'm just trying to explore other possibilities :) Rosie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From rvotaw at i-55.com Wed Aug 14 11:49:03 2002 From: rvotaw at i-55.com (Richelle Votaw) Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 06:49:03 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Latin in Harry Potter--Arabella Figg References: <32.2b6ad5b7.2a8b67cc@aol.com> Message-ID: <008a01c24388$96ab09c0$639fcdd1@istu757> No: HPFGUIDX 42618 > Eloise: > > OK. I have two problems: > > One. Why does *everything* have to be derived from Latin? There are lots of > wizards whose names don't have Latin derivations. Because it's really cool. :) And I've nothing better to do at the moment. And I'm just determined that JKR is not pulling anything else over on my watch so blatantly obvious as "Lupin" being a werewolf. So I'm going to suspect everything until I find otherwise. > Two. Dumbledore places Harry with the dreadful Dursleys because they are his > *only living relatives* and it is apparently necessary for his protection > that he lives with blood relatives. Dumbledore doesn't say they're Harry's only living relatives. He says "they're the only family he has now." > If Arabella is really a Potter, why, in heaven's name, doesn't he have her > look after Harry herself (disguising herself as a muggle if necessary, as she > has done anyway) instead of having her supervise from afar? Ah, you've invited me to launch into yet another theory. Too kind. :) I'm on the "magic of family protection" theory that the Dudley's are Harry's best protection because they're the *closest* living realtions he has. Also, it's on his mother's side. That may have something to do with it. I just find it really hard to believe that *every* Potter has been wiped out. I doubt Mrs. Figg would be a very close relative, not his grandmother or anything, but something like a great aunt would be a relative but not very close in blood relations. Not near as close as that horrid Aunt Petunia. Another thing this would explain though, is why Arabella Figg would virtually leave the WW behind to live as a muggle. Just to watch after "the boy who lived." I admit he's rather famous and it would be an honor, but still, living as a muggle seems almost a disgrace! But if he's her great nephew or something I'd see why. I expect to have my theory verified or debunked in book 5. :) Well, I've actually got to go to work today (school starts--for teachers anyway) so I'd best shut up and go. Richelle From psychchick04 at yahoo.com Wed Aug 14 12:11:56 2002 From: psychchick04 at yahoo.com (Jacqueline Hendries) Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 05:11:56 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Arabella Figg, Snape & Lilly In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020814121156.97244.qmail@web9203.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 42619 Richelle said: > > Okay, I may be going overboard with this Latin thing, but still > this is pretty cool. First, I looked up "ara." It means > sanctuary. Next, bella. It could come from one of these root words: > > > > bellatrix = female warrior > > belliger = waging war > > bello = fight > > bellum = combat > > belua = monster > > > > Take your pick, any of them fits in and makes sense. Now, here's > the really cool part. > > > > Take her last name, Figg. In Latin it would probably come from > one of these two words: > > > > figo = establish (that would make sense, she established a > sanctuary and was there to wage war if necessary) > > figulus = potter > > > > Whoa! Could she have changed her name to avoid association and > become Arabella Figg instead of Arabella Potter? Is she Harry's > great aunt? Grandmother? Great grandmother? Wait! Don't throw > anything yet. Let me defend my wild theory for a moment. 1) The > Dursleys more than likely would not know any of James Potter's > family, right? Right. 2) She may not have appeared with Harry's > family in the Mirror of Erised, as Dumbledore told Harry "the mirror > will give us neither knowledge nor truth." > > > > Okay, I'm admitting it's a really wild theory, but I'm rather fond > of wild theories. I think I'll start writing all of my wild > theories down, one of them's bound to be right! :) And then Mike replied: > Ok I'll buy that. Lets' take it a step further. > > We know JK likes to play with names and reversing the letters right. > Like the Mirror of Erised. Spelled backwards (Desire). Easy enough. > > Lets try it with another name ... Snape... Epans, change the "p" > to "v". Does this seem interesting? Maybe this is why Snape > dislikes Harry. Harry represents Snape's sister that was taking > from him. Why Voldy didn't have to kill Lilly the night he went to > kill Harry? Is this because Lilly Evans Potter was a blood sister > of a death eater? Now me: Weelll.... as much as I would love to believe that Arabella Figg is somehow related to James Potter, I'm pretty sure it's said somewhere in the books that the Dursleys are Harry's only living relatives. I'm pretty sure that's why he's living with them - the protection that Dumbledore's placed on him *only* works if he's in the care of a blood relative. Of course, if I'm only imagining that it's said explicitly, there are plenty of reasons that Dumbledore might want Harry to live with Muggles - at the beginning of SS/PS, he says that he doesn't want Harry to get a swelled head, that it will be better for him not to be famous, during his childhood at least, for something that he doesn't even remember doing. If this is the case, then I can definitely see him asking one of Harry's "blood relatives," Arabella, to stick around and keep an eye on him. I'm not sure what to make of the Snape-Evans thing, although I do find it really interesting. If Snape realised that his sister was in danger, that could indeed be a cause for switching sides very late in the game, as Dumbledore said he did (this actually fits in quite nicely with the "It wuz Snape" theory, which I don't always buy, but which definitely holds water). I think there's a lot more to Snape than we know right now, but... intuitively, I don't "feel" like Snape was related to (or in love with, for that matter) Lily Evans. Which is a bad reason for not accepting a theory, I know. But I like to go with my gut. :) What's there in canon to tear up this theory? First of all, there's the issue of family resemblance - JKR seems to emphasize that quite a lot, and there's none between Snape and Lily (though I admit Snape could be taking a potion or doing something else to disguise himself). Secondly, the way that Snape treats Harry. I know the man's a bit stunted, emotionally, but I feel like any partially-normal uncle would tend to extreme kindness to the only son of a beloved, and lost, sister. I know, I know, Snape protects him in SS/PS, etc, etc, but he's extraordinarily mean to his friends (the incident with Hermione's teeth in GoF) and, when you get down to it, extraordinarily mean to Harry (that whole "Fame isn't everything" scene in SS/PS). Aside from that, I think it's unlikely that Petunia would not have mentioned "her freak brother," as well, when Hagrid first comes. I suppose it could have been mentioned in Dumbledore's letter not to reveal Snape's relationship to Harry, but it doesn't seem that the Dursleys had been particularly concerned with Dumbledore's wishes otherwise... A lot of other factors are pretty neutral - the Marauders' rivalry with Snape during their time at Hogwarts, for example. You could argue that James and the gang wouldn't want to pick on a friend's sibling. But, if Lily was very friendly with MWPP right off the bat, and was similarly mischievous, one can imagine she'd offer up her sour, solemn brother as a foil quite frequently. If James was in love with her, it gives him extra impetus to save Snape from the Whomping Willow. But then, one could also argue that sweet, protective Lily would never let them pick so much on her brother. We really don't know enough about this era! ::taps foot impatiently in general direction of JKR:: There doesn't seem to be enough canon either way, but I do think it's a really interesting theory. One last thing... would Snape and Lily have to be twins in order to be in the same year at Hogwarts? All this year/when one gets the letter/etc. stuff really confuses me :P ~ Aloha ===== also known as Aloha Moira Read Potters, A History - Chapter 9 is coming soon to a Schnoogle near you! www.schnoogle.com/authorLinks/Aloha_Moira/Potters_A_History __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? HotJobs - Search Thousands of New Jobs http://www.hotjobs.com From mrflynn6 at yahoo.com Wed Aug 14 13:35:54 2002 From: mrflynn6 at yahoo.com (mrflynn6) Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 13:35:54 -0000 Subject: Latin in Harry Potter--Arabella Figg In-Reply-To: <008a01c24388$96ab09c0$639fcdd1@istu757> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42620 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., wrote: > > Eloise: > > > > > > > > Why does *everything* have to be derived from Latin? There are lots > of > > wizards whose names don't have Latin derivations. > > > > --------------------------------------- About 90% of English words (and most European languages for that matter) have roots in the latin language. That is why the Latin derivitive is so important or could be so important. I found some more translations I thought were very interesting. Potter (which JKR said it was the name of old neighbors she liked-but I am sure she knew this too) means "to have great power" Minerva is the Roman Goddess of Wisdom Avada Kedavra-without spelling changes= to take away breath Ludo (as in Bagman)= to play sports Back to the Dumbledore Latin meaning, the old English word of bumblebee probably has significance, but I also think that if you look at the Latin to give birth to or to send to die will also have significance. JKR has made a few references in interviews to Harry not living past book 7 (when asked if she was going to write more than 7 books about Harry Potter). Most of the names of the wizards do have roots in Latin, either first or last name. It is just a matter of figuring out the root word of the name and discovering that. Gretchen From primroseburrows at yahoo.com Wed Aug 14 11:16:17 2002 From: primroseburrows at yahoo.com (Primrose Burrows) Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 04:16:17 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: forbidden forest (Werewolf Pups) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020814111617.17004.qmail@web12907.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 42621 bboy_mn wrote: BBoy_mn Comment: >Werewolf Pups- While logically there would seem to be no werewolf >pups since you become a werewolf by being bitten by a werewolf, what >happens if a werewolf mates with a regular wolf or a werewolf mates >with another female werewolf? I can't see that happening. I think (and it's just MO) that werewolves aren't about mating when they're running, they're about ripping things/creatures/people apart. When they're back to their human state, they procreate the way everyone else does, and their kids are just normal little wizards and witches. You get to be a werewolf by being bitten by one, not by having a parent who's one. ~primrose --------------------------------- Do You Yahoo!? HotJobs, a Yahoo! service - Search Thousands of New Jobs [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From primroseburrows at yahoo.com Wed Aug 14 10:49:23 2002 From: primroseburrows at yahoo.com (Primrose Burrows) Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 03:49:23 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: forbidden forest (Werewolf Pups) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020814104923.96293.qmail@web12903.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 42622 Patrick Mahony wrote: >If there were other werewolves in the Forest, why did Dumbledore see to it >that Lupin was taken to the Shrieking Shack, rather than somewhere in >the forest? Roo Maybe he was the only one they knew personally. It's probably pretty hard to catch a werewolf. Having said that, I can't imagine that random werewolves could just wander onto the Hogwarts grounds without being noticed, what with all the charms and spells to keep people away--or would these only be affective on Muggles, and let magical people/creatures slip right on past? ~primrose "We're strange allies with warring hearts; what wild-eyed beast you be..." --Dave Matthews --------------------------------- Do You Yahoo!? HotJobs, a Yahoo! service - Search Thousands of New Jobs [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From hpfgu at plum.cream.org Wed Aug 14 14:47:38 2002 From: hpfgu at plum.cream.org (GulPlum) Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 15:47:38 +0100 Subject: Latin in Harry Potter--Arabella Figg In-Reply-To: <001101c2433c$52f23920$4fa2cdd1@istu757> Message-ID: <4.2.0.58.20020814151711.009e3a00@plum.cream.org> No: HPFGUIDX 42623 At 21:43 13/08/02 -0500, you wrote: >Okay, I may be going overboard with this Latin thing, but still this is >pretty cool. First, I looked up "ara." It means sanctuary. Next, >bella. It could come from one of these root words: > >bellatrix = female warrior >belliger = waging war >bello = fight >bellum = combat >belua = monster > >Take your pick, any of them fits in and makes sense. All but the fourth are directly connected to each other (and the fourth is a different stem, including as it does only one l and can be discounted), so you may as well just limit to the base "bellum", of which "bella" is the plural nominative or accusative. To have either of these plural cases connected to the singular nominative "ara" simply doesn't make grammatical sense. You've forgotten the principal meaning of "bella" which is the single nominative female for "beautiful". As "ara" is a female noun in the nominative singular, we have grammatical concordance, which is awfully important in inflected languages. This creates the accepted etymology of Arabella - "beautiful sanctuary". Which, as it happens, fits with her presumed role in the Potterverse. If you were to insist on taking "bellum" as the root, then "ara bella" could only conceivably be translated "sanctuary of the wars", which whilst literally meaningless, implies "the place where the wars can be safe", which is diametrically the opposite of the role you're ascribing. Grabbing Latin vocabulary out of the air without considering the grammar is a dangerous route to establishing false etymologies. > Now, here's the really cool part. >Take her last name, Figg. In Latin it would probably come from one of >these two words: > >figo = establish (that would make sense, she established a sanctuary and >was there to wage war if necessary) No, she *is* the sanctuary. >figulus = potter I hate to burst your bubble, but you're not the first person to have suggested that. :-) >Whoa! Could she have changed her name to avoid association and become >Arabella Figg instead of Arabella Potter? Is she Harry's great >aunt? Grandmother? Great grandmother? Wait! Don't throw anything >yet. Let me defend my wild theory for a moment. 1) The Dursleys more >than likely would not know any of James Potter's family, >right? Right. 2) She may not have appeared with Harry's family in the >Mirror of Erised, as Dumbledore told Harry "the mirror will give us >neither knowledge nor truth." > >Okay, I'm admitting it's a really wild theory, but I'm rather fond of wild >theories. I think I'll start writing all of my wild theories down, one of >them's bound to be right! :) However, Dumbledore also said that the Dursleys are all the family that Harry has left. It would have made more sense for Dumbledore to have left Harry in Arabella's permanent care if she was any kind of close relative. Besides, she is *MRS* Figg. If she wanted to change her name, she would have reverted to her maiden name rather than use fancy translations via Latin. Sorry, I do think this is one of the more fanciful and unreliable theories out there. :-) -- GulPlum AKA Richard, UK (I've changed the way I access HPFGU and I hope this gets through!) From eloiseherisson at aol.com Wed Aug 14 16:28:42 2002 From: eloiseherisson at aol.com (eloiseherisson at aol.com) Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 12:28:42 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Latin in Harry Potter--Arabella Figg Message-ID: <1a1.6eda977.2a8bdf3a@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 42624 Richelle, who corrects me for incorrectly quoting canon (oops! And I never correct anyone, of course........;-) ) says, > I just find it really hard to believe that *every* Potter has been wiped > out. > I doubt Mrs. Figg would be a very close relative, not his grandmother or > anything, but something like a great aunt would be a relative but not very > close in blood relations. Not near as close as that horrid Aunt Petunia. Eloise: I find it equally weird, if not more so, that every Evans is also wiped out, particularly if they're not magical and weren't involved in the first Voldemort conflict. Harry sees other pairs of green eyes in the Mirror of Erised; I wonder who they are? Richelle: > > Another thing this would explain though, is why Arabella Figg would > virtually leave the WW behind to live as a muggle. Just to watch after > "the > boy who lived." I admit he's rather famous and it would be an honor, but > still, living as a muggle seems almost a disgrace! But if he's her great > nephew or something I'd see why. I expect to have my theory verified or > debunked in book 5. :) Eloise: Well, one of the other theories (it was Cindy's, although she later reneged on it, despite a number of us supporting it) is that Arabella is Sirius' girlfriend. She therefore 1) feels like an unofficial godmother and 2) is shamed in the WW by her connection with a supposed criminal. Her exile in the Muggle world would become more understandable then. Eloise I must double-check my canon I must double-check my canon I must double-check my canon........... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From lucky_kari at yahoo.ca Wed Aug 14 17:04:02 2002 From: lucky_kari at yahoo.ca (lucky_kari) Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 17:04:02 -0000 Subject: A Germanicist Revolts WAS Re: Latin in Harry Potter--Arabella Figg In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42625 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "mrflynn6" wrote: > About 90% of English words (and most European languages for that > matter) have roots in the latin language. That is why the Latin > derivitive is so important or could be so important. Given that a great deal of the above words are not of Latin derivation, this is not true. English is a Germanic language, not a Romance one. There is a good deal of Latin in it, by reason of several factors, the most important being the Norman conquest. Much of our Latin comes by way of French. And you know what, I very much like the old pre-Latin English. I plan to be studying it all this year. Therefore, to seek Latin meanings in very Germanic words puts a dagger through my heart. > Potter (which JKR said it was the name of old neighbors she liked- but > I am sure she knew this too) means "to have great power" "Potere" IIRC is the Latin equivalent of "to be able to, can." However, "Potter" is perfectly fine English. > Minerva is the Roman Goddess of Wisdom Right > Avada Kedavra-without spelling changes= to take away breath Where do you get this translation? It's obviously corrupted Latin. But breath is usually "animus" and several other words none of which include "Kedavra" which doesn't look Latin. However "avada" seems to mean "go out of" and "Kedavra" seems a corruption of the Latin- derived English word "cadaver." Therefore, "Avada Kedavra" is a command for something to leave the body. The soul, to be precice ie. death. > Ludo (as in Bagman)= to play sports Ludo actually means "I play" and I do think this is a JKR joke, but you must also remember that Ludo in the books is short for "Ludovic" a Germanic name, that may have some significance in Germanic myth. I don't think anyone ever bothers to look in that direction but they should. > Back to the Dumbledore Latin meaning, the old English word of > bumblebee probably has significance, I see that you've not capitalized old, but I want to comment on several other posts that mentioned Dumbledore was Old English for bumblebee. Old English is actually a specific form of English: pre- conquest English. As you said, dumbledore is an old English word for bumblebee. However, it is not an Old English word for bumblebee. >but I also think that if you > look at the Latin to give birth to or to send to die will also have > significance. I've studied Latin for five years and never heard of the verb "dumbledore" meaning to give birth to or to send to die. And it doesn't even look Latin in the first place. On the other hand, it IS English! > Most of the names of the wizards do have roots in Latin, either first > or last name. It is just a matter of figuring out the root word of > the name and discovering that. No. They don't! I'm a big fan of Latin, but why must it crowd out all other languages? Is Latin morally superior to Old English? Is it more significant? GulPlum >Grabbing Latin vocabulary out of the air without considering the >grammar is a dangerous route to establishing false etymologies. Yes. It's awfully tempting just to flip through a dictionary of a language you don't know and try to derive things, but it's a lot harder than it looks. And Latin is a very precice language. Thanks for doing such a good job explaining "Arabella." Eileen From eloiseherisson at aol.com Wed Aug 14 17:34:30 2002 From: eloiseherisson at aol.com (eloiseherisson at aol.com) Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 13:34:30 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Latin in Harry Potter--Arabella Figg (again) Message-ID: <120.14781369.2a8beea6@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 42626 Gretchen: > About 90% of English words (and most European languages for that > matter) have roots in the latin language. That is why the Latin > derivitive is so important or could be so important. > > Eloise: Are you sure about that? I understood that about 50% of the words in common usage derive from Old English, which is a Germanic tongue. Of course, if you include scientific, technical and medical terms, the results are going to be skewed significantly towards Greek and Latin. French, Italian and Spanish have much higher Latin quotients than English, I would venture. In any case, as I have pointed out, Arabella already has a perfectly good Latin derivation, meaning amiable (which in itself could be used to back up the Sirius/Arabella theory, or to back up the 'Mrs Figg is really a lovely young witch who's polyjuiced/aged herself into an old woman' theory). It just seems a bit much to then go and work out a secondary derivation. All I can say is that if I were an author with an interest in language and words, I would *select* names according to their primary meaning, or make up or use names that punned or hinted at meanings in English. I don't think I would take an established name, with an established meaning and use it to mean something else that it could possibly be tortured into meaning in another language. This makes Humpty Dumpty's use of language look positively conventional! Gretchen: Back to the Dumbledore Latin meaning, the old English word of bumblebee probably has significance, but I also think that if you look at the Latin to give birth to or to send to die will also have significance. Eloise: Could you derive that for me? My 'A' Level Latin's rusty. I also wonder about this implication that Latin derivations are better than derivaitons from other languages (which is the implication of my original question of why does everything have to have a Latin root?). My Anglo-Saxon roots (if such they are) are bristling. (Can roots bristle?) Eloise Who loves abstruse theories, but also believes in the application of Ockham's razor and is glad that Richard, at least is of similar opinions. (In his last post, at least. He may disagree violently with this!) Oh....and Eileen, who has just posted since I wrote this. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From yrawen at ontheqt.org Wed Aug 14 18:06:34 2002 From: yrawen at ontheqt.org (yr awen) Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 14:06:34 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Latin in Harry Potter--Arabella Figg (again) References: <120.14781369.2a8beea6@aol.com> Message-ID: <018101c243bd$54009740$badef718@kzo.chartermi.net> No: HPFGUIDX 42627 ::list's resident Anglo-Saxonist leaps into the room, axe at the ready:: Sorry... Eloise's post caught my eye This *will* be on topic, I swear it. Eloise: Are you sure about that? I understood that about 50% of the words in common usage derive from Old English, which is a Germanic tongue. Of course, if you include scientific, technical and medical terms, the results are going to be skewed significantly towards Greek and Latin. French, Italian and Spanish have much higher Latin quotients than English, I would venture.<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Well, French, Italian & c. are Romance languages, derived directly from Latin. I think it's Wheelocke who asserts that the Romance languages are more or less new forms of old local dialects and corruptions in spoken Latin. Eloise: In any case, as I have pointed out, Arabella already has a perfectly good Latin derivation, meaning amiable (which in itself could be used to back up the Sirius/Arabella theory, or to back up the 'Mrs Figg is really a lovely young witch who's polyjuiced/aged herself into an old woman' theory).<<<<<<<<<<< This is when being two days without eckletricity (horrors!) becomes difficult to deal with... ::sighs and eyes mountains of posts, trudges out for a bit, then comes back:: Ahhhh, very interesting theory -- it makes one positively salivate in impatience for Book Five. It'll also be interesting to see whether or not Arabella is truly amiable, as her name suggests, or if she holds up the old cabbage/cats image Harry has of her. Gretchen: Back to the Dumbledore Latin meaning, the old English word of bumblebee probably has significance, but I also think that if you look at the Latin to give birth to or to send to die will also have significance.<<<<<<<<<< I think JKR herself has said that Dumbledore reminds her of a bumblebee, in that she pictures him wandering around and humming to himself (I forget the interview, I'm sorry.) For myself, I can't help but remember Muhammad Ali's immortal quote: "Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee", which seems to me to describe a lot of Dumbledore's personality. As for the Latin, the only verbs I know for 'to give birth to' are 'parere' and 'gignere', and I only know these because I had to stare at 'parere's' conjugations in 501 Latin Verbs for ages. Although, the idea of 'send to die' is sort of morbidly intriguing. Eloise: I also wonder about this implication that Latin derivations are better than derivaitons from other languages (which is the implication of my original question of why does everything have to have a Latin root?). My Anglo-Saxon roots (if such they are) are bristling. (Can roots bristle?)<<<<<<<<< That question is, I believe, much MUCH older than this list . It probably extends all the way back to when the Anglo-Saxons and their writing were being influenced heavily by Church Latin, and writers decided that attempting to transpose Latin grammar onto English (which, in some ways, can't accept that) would be a good idea because they thought it would sound smarter. Latinate language and the preference for it survives today I think because it sounds so sophisticated and knowledgable, which is exactly how it was throughout the Middle Ages and into the Renaissance; Latin was the language of the Church, government, and the learned class, while English (or other vulgate tongues) was the property of the layman, serf, et cetera. Today, it lives on in medical terminology, bureaucracy, and academia... and occasional speculative fiction books . HF. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From wmginnypowell at msn.com Wed Aug 14 16:55:44 2002 From: wmginnypowell at msn.com (merimom3) Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 16:55:44 -0000 Subject: Explaining magic/Protecting valuables/Mirror of erised Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42628 [R. MacDonald writes] > A) Magic is simply Science we haven't yet discovered. I >forget who first said that but I always liked that quote. [me] "Any sufficiently advanced technology is virtually indistinguishable from magic." That's Clarke's Law (as in Arthur C. Clarke). BBOY_MN Originally said: > How is anything safe from theft in the magic world? [me] I had a great idea about this in the middle of the night: what if you made your valuables portkeys?! Then anyone who touched them would be transported to, say, the WW equivalent of a police station, or even Azkaban itself. Of course, that includes you if you forget to change it back to normal before you want to wear it / use it / spend it. I can see a jewelry store with everything just laying out and big "Do Not Touch" signs everywhere, and no worry that anything will be stolen. Eloise (in a canonical reference) says: >I find it equally weird, if not more so, that every Evans is also >wiped out, particularly if they're not magical and weren't involved >in the first Voldemort conflict. Harry sees other pairs of green >eyes in the Mirror of Erised; I wonder who they are? [me] What Harry sees is what he desires ? a large family. Maybe his mom and dad look like themselves due to some latent memory, but the rest of the crowd is just wishful thinking, IMHO, not secret relatives only the mirror knows about. Ginny, who is finally caught up! But probably not for long! From jodel at aol.com Wed Aug 14 17:32:04 2002 From: jodel at aol.com (jodel at aol.com) Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 13:32:04 EDT Subject: Introducing a new Memory Charm Message-ID: <15e.12416c8a.2a8bee14@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 42629 "lucky_kari"'s post states; >>"Time after time, listies have pointed out that the DEs were probably wrong. Frank had absolutely no knowledge of where Voldemort was. How could he? He didn't divulge the information because he didn't know it. It's perfectly rational, but I don't buy it.<< In my own privite theory, the whole Longbottom incident was in fact a scheme to discredit Barty Crouch Sr. who was getting dangerously close to becoming the next Minister of Magic and displacing their tool Fudge (assuming that Fudge was MoM at that point. If not there is little difference, since eliminating the competition that Crouch represented enabled them to insert their man where they wanted him. Er, it IS obvious to everyone whose pocket Fudge is in, isn't it?). Barty Jr. and the Lestranges knew perfectly well that Longbottom, let alone his wife, had no critical information as to the whereabouts of Lord V. Any auror would have had as much, so any auror would have done insofar as extraction of information goes (and, yes, they DID probably get at least some information -- and passed it on before they were captured). The purpose of the whole exercise was to create an atrocity which would have the whole wizarding world (which was slipping into complacency after Voldy's defeat) up in arms and set a stage in which Barty Jr. (who, if nothing else, was a supurb actor) could enact the unjustly accused (possibly) innocent victim, placing his father in a no-win situation since whatever direction Crouch Sr. took it, he was going to look bad. Crouch and the Lestranges were very sure of the ultimate outcome since they had Crouch Sr.'s track record to work from. I doubt that Sirius Black was the only suspect he ever sentenced without trial. The publicity attached to the Longbottom case, and the fact that the attack was carried out in what was believed to be peacetime assured that Crouch Sr. at least wasn't going to be able to get away with that this time. The Longbottoms were targeted because of their popularity and for no other reason. Neville has a good deal more mysteries to him than appears, yes, but outdated information on the whereabouts of Lord Voldemort is not one of them. The liklihood that the Lestranges and Crouch Jr. deliberately put themselves into Azkaban is supported by Mrs Lestrange's statement at their sentencing. Barty Jr. may not have realized when he agreed to it that he was engaged on what would turn out to be a suicide mission, and that realization, the influences of the Dememtors, and the decade under Inperius as his father's prisioner were quite enough to turn his mind altogether. It is small wonder that he loathes any of his former fellows who hadn't the nerve to go to Azkaban for their Lord. >>However, years later what was it that Bertha Jorkins overheard Crouch Jr. saying to Winky that convinced Voldemort Crouch was still his loyal servant?<< I tend toward the notion that it was just the fact that Crouch Jr was alive and in his father's custody that Voldemort latched onto. Pettigrew had filled him in on everything that had been going down in the British WW since the night at Godric's Hollow. He had been spying on the Weasleys for the entire period, and heard everthing that was floating around in public domain as well as whatever spin that the Ministry had put on it. Pettigrew's information was invaluable. So, Voldy knew that the Lestranges and young Crouch had deliberately gone to Azkaban to safeguard Voldemort's organization and to get whatever information the aurors of the time did have as to his whereabouts and this spoke loudly in favor of his continued loyalty, since it had remained uncompromised by having made any kind of peace with the Ministry. Of course I could just be cutting my throat with Occam's razor. -JOdel From feliciarickmann at dsl.pipex.com Wed Aug 14 18:37:05 2002 From: feliciarickmann at dsl.pipex.com (feliciarickmann) Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 18:37:05 -0000 Subject: Fuel for Flying Fords In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42630 > > Does the Ford Anglia need gas now? > > I don't think it ever has, since Arthur tinkered with it. Flying to Scotland > on one tank would be quite an achievement, especially after they'd already > driven to London. > I am not so sure that now it's magic it does might still need *something* to keep it going. After all how else to Harry and Ron finally land? What I mean is..... The Ford Anglia (the surving 1 of 14 permanently extinguished by a certain film crew..) appears in the book to be *fading* is the same way our anguished old family jalopy did many years ago when it ran out of petrol, and it would make sense to have the *running out of petrol* scenario as neither Harry nor Ron know how to drive *properly* or would know how to land the car anyway. In any event a much more theatrical entrance is necessary. Otherwise how do we find Uncle Severus in a position to berate Harry and Ron for their misdemeanour, and miss a Snape fan's moment of fun....? And how else to we meet the ultimately vital Whomping Willow? It all ties in together... but the Ford Anglia Does Need Something. Arthur Weasley *tinkered* with it, he did not do a complete magical rebuild....... *Thinks for a moment...* No he's Definitely, Definitely, Not the mechanical type. His collection of plugs recently seen on The Wizarding Wireless web site shows Arthur's mechanical ability, I think....... Felicia From yrawen at ontheqt.org Wed Aug 14 19:04:55 2002 From: yrawen at ontheqt.org (yr awen) Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 15:04:55 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Fuel for Flying Fords References: Message-ID: <01bf01c243c5$7a88d000$badef718@kzo.chartermi.net> No: HPFGUIDX 42631 Felicia said, in relation to the Anglia's need for fuel: I am not so sure that now it's magic it does might still need *something* to keep it going. After all how else to Harry and Ron finally land? What I mean is.....<<<<<<<< However, the car *does* turn up several months later trundling around the woods on its own, but there are no oil wells or gas stations(presumably) in the Forbidden Forest. Felicia: The Ford Anglia (the surving 1 of 14 permanently extinguished by a certain film crew..) appears in the book to be *fading* is the same way our anguished old family jalopy did many years ago when it ran out of petrol, and it would make sense to have the *running out of petrol* scenario as neither Harry nor Ron know how to drive *properly* or would know how to land the car anyway.<<<<<<<< On the other hand, the description of the Anglia isn't really that of it running out of fuel, but rather it's having engine (or possibly radiator) trouble; the engine starts whining, steam starts hissing from underneath the hood, et cetera. Ron makes a remark to the effect that the car's getting tired, as it's never travelled so far before; the farthest it's gone, I guess, is between Ottery St. Catchpole and London, or maybe Surrey, whichever's farthest. There's also the implication that the car, like a horse that's fed up with tolerating an idiot rider, is past the end of its patience and finally kicks Ron and Harry out after being beaten up by the Whomping Willow. Felicia: In any event a much more theatrical entrance is necessary. Otherwise how do we find Uncle Severus in a position to berate Harry and Ron for their misdemeanour, and miss a Snape fan's moment of fun....? And how else to we meet the ultimately vital Whomping Willow?<<<<<<< Well, that and Harry and Ron have to get rescued from the Acromantulas *somehow* Seriously, though, the Anglia passages are amongst my favorites in the series. Felicia again: ... but the Ford Anglia Does Need Something. Arthur Weasley *tinkered* with it, he did not do a complete magical rebuild....... *Thinks for a moment...* No he's Definitely, Definitely, Not the mechanical type. His collection of plugs recently seen on The Wizarding Wireless web site shows Arthur's mechanical ability, I think.......<<<<<<<< But he does put in an Invisibility Booster *and* enchants it to fly -- mechanics and magic are probably two completely different things, and Arthur strikes me as being a very competent, although somewhat scattered, wizard. I agree that the Anglia does need some form of fuel (nourishment??) but how exactly it goes about getting it while on its own in the forest eludes me. Maybe it cannibalizes itself, or maybe the centaurs (or other sentient creatures) figured out a way to help it out. The idea of the Anglia going native in the Forbidden Forest, but leaping in to save Ron and Harry from certain death, is, to me, an endless source of entertainment and amusement. Perhaps, as a stereotypical American who is psychically bonded to her car, I find I can relate HF. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Ali at zymurgy.org Wed Aug 14 20:11:13 2002 From: Ali at zymurgy.org (alhewison) Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 20:11:13 -0000 Subject: Latin in Harry Potter--Arabella Figg (again) In-Reply-To: <120.14781369.2a8beea6@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42632 Aha! I couldn't resist a Latin argument again To follow on from the discussion of the meaning of Arabella: " Of Scottish origin and uncertain etymology. It probably represents an alteration of An(n)abella" Annabel: "...probably an altered form of Amabel, an obsolete French name derived from Latin amabilis "lovable" Quotes are from Oxford University Press book of "Babies Names". I think this just confirms what Eloise has already said. The dictionary goes on to state that the Latinised form "Annabella is "influenced by Latin bella beautiful" Eloise said:- <<>> Well, here is a back up to the polyjuiced/ aged potion Arabella theory, which has probably be used by someone somewhere before, but I haven't seen it (so apologies if this is a repeat):- There is apparently an English word "fig" meaning dress. To "fig out" is to dress up. This word is a variation of an obsolete word "feague" which comes from German, which if I understand my Concise Oxford dictionary correctly means "Fake". If JKR has indeed deliberately chosen Mrs Figg's name, then this is (IMHO) very strong evidence towards the Arabella "in mufti" theory. Eloise again : My 'A' Level Latin's rusty. Me too, but it's still like red rag to a bull when someone brings it up! Eloise: <<>> I agree 100%. Just as "English" is a concoction of languages, so I think is the language of the Potterverse. I love etymology and Latin derivations in particular. I just feel that JKR has perhaps cast her net a bit wider than Latin, just as her use of mythology is not confined to one cultural heritage. Ali Who doesn't really "give a fig", but loves the debates! From xp39c at yahoo.com Wed Aug 14 20:39:49 2002 From: xp39c at yahoo.com (xp39c) Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 20:39:49 -0000 Subject: Ticket to ride - no wands necessary In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42633 Marianne wrote: > So, that leaves me with several choices: 1) A wand is necessary for > Apparation. > > If a wand is not necessary, then why is Sirius, a bright Hogwarts > student, apparently not not using apparation for travel? > > 1) Sirius, like other experienced wizards, can apparate perfectly > well without a wand, but feels an obligation to not leave Buckbeak to > fend for himself, so rather than safely Apparate unseen from place to > place, he stays with the hippogryff. 2) Apparation can be detected > or monitored by the MoM, so Sirius cannot do so for his own safety. > 3) Sirius is not a powerful enough wizard to managed Apparation > without the aid of a wand. > > I'm sure there are other possibilities that could explain this, but > that's all I can deal with right now. Here's two more possibilities: 1.Sirius doesn't like to Apparate. Simple, mundane, but (sort of) backed up by canon. In GoF Ch 9, Mr. Weasley said, "You don't mess around with Apparition. There are plenty of adult wizards who don't bother with it. Prefer brooms--slower, but safer." Maybe Sirius is one of these people. 2.You can't Apparate in animagus form. He couldn't risk suddenly showing up in the middle of Hogsmeade and having someone see him. --Hei Lun From kkearney at students.miami.edu Wed Aug 14 20:47:14 2002 From: kkearney at students.miami.edu (corinthum) Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 20:47:14 -0000 Subject: Latin in Harry Potter--Arabella Figg In-Reply-To: <1a1.6eda977.2a8bdf3a@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42634 Richelle wondered: > > Another thing this would explain though, is why Arabella Figg would > > virtually leave the WW behind to live as a muggle. Just to watch after > > "the > > boy who lived." I admit he's rather famous and it would be an honor, but > > still, living as a muggle seems almost a disgrace! But if he's her great > > nephew or something I'd see why. I expect to have my theory verified or > > debunked in book 5. :) And Eloise suggested: > Well, one of the other theories (it was Cindy's, although she later reneged > on it, despite a number of us supporting it) is that Arabella is Sirius' > girlfriend. She therefore 1) feels like an unofficial godmother and 2) is > shamed in the WW by her connection with a supposed criminal. Her exile in the > Muggle world would become more understandable then. But I now ask: We really don't know that Arabella Figg has cut ties with the Wizarding World, do we? One of my many vague theories is that Arabella is working as a sort of Head of Operations for the Harry Potter Protection Squad. She has taken up residence in the Dursley's neighborhood and uses polyjuice potion to make regular appearences as old Mrs.Figg. However, I believe she is in constant contact with Dumbledore as well as many others in the "old crowd" (which, by the way, I don't believe includes Arthur or Molly Weasley; but I digress). It would be quite easy for her to apparate out of her muggle home without anyone noticing. In fact, she may have a separate home in the WW where she spends most of her time, while her Privet Dr. home is her work office. -Corinth, who is relieved to learn she is not the only one bothered by Latin translations of Germanic words. From yrawen at ontheqt.org Wed Aug 14 21:06:49 2002 From: yrawen at ontheqt.org (yr awen) Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 17:06:49 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Latin in Harry Potter--Arabella Figg References: Message-ID: <01f201c243d6$8233f260$badef718@kzo.chartermi.net> No: HPFGUIDX 42635 Corinth: We really don't know that Arabella Figg has cut ties with the Wizarding World, do we? One of my many vague theories is that Arabella is working as a sort of Head of Operations for the Harry Potter Protection Squad.<<<<<<<<<< I think this is probably the general, tentative consensus, at least with regards to a more 'formal' connection with the Ministry or some kind of sponsored, concerted effort to keep Harry safe. Somehow, it makes a bit more sense (at least, at the moment) than a relative. Corinth: However, I believe she is in constant contact with Dumbledore as well as many others in the "old crowd" (which, by the way, I don't believe includes Arthur or Molly Weasley; but I digress).<<<<<<< No, no, no! ::jumps up and down:: You're not allowed to digress and then not say anything! Elaborate! Pleeaaase! ::stops jumping up and down, pants:: In, out... Why do you think this? I'm not challenging or anything, just curious. -Corinth, who is relieved to learn she is not the only one bothered by Latin translations of Germanic words.<<<<<<< To be fair (and academically correct), no language is completely pure. As long as it's existed in written form, English has borrowed from Latin, to varying extents. Most Germanic languages have appropriated little bits here and there -- blame the Romans for banging around Gaul and Germania and places like that. 'Candel' (modern 'candle') was a Latin loanword, and employed in all sorts of Anglo-Latin compounds, for example. We do have a mixed heritage, all of us :-) HF. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From purple_801999 at yahoo.com Wed Aug 14 18:41:37 2002 From: purple_801999 at yahoo.com (purple_801999) Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 18:41:37 -0000 Subject: Snape's House In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42636 Fyre Wood wrote- > One theme I've seen in Harry Potter is the lack of house integration. > I don't see many Gryffindors willingly making friends with > Hufflepuffs and vice versa. Only Percy Weasley was the exception > since he dated Ravenclaw's Penelope. > Actually Goblet of Fire is full of house interactions, mostly of the dating kind. Cedric of Hufflepuff dated Cho in Ravenclaw who Harry would have happily taken to the ball. Snape caught a Stebbins from Hufflepuff and a Fawcett from Ravanclaw in the bushes. I suppose there is more interaction between the houses than is alluded to in the books. Hermione went to the ball with Krum even though we the readers never actually saw or heard of them together before that. It might just be Harry himself who has very little time to really socialize with students from the other houses since he's usually busy trying not to be killed in some grusome manner or other. -Olivia, who feels the Hufflepuffs have gotten a bad rap. We can't all be brave and ambitious you know. From gandharvika at hotmail.com Wed Aug 14 18:59:26 2002 From: gandharvika at hotmail.com (Gail Bohacek) Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 18:59:26 +0000 Subject: HPforGrownups:Privet Drive (FILK) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42637 Privet Drive (a FILK written by Gail Bohacek to the tune of _Penny Lane_ by Paul McCartney and John Lennon) This Filk is dedicated to Lilac who opened up my bag of potato chips (I think she knows what I mean) On Privet Drive Mr.. Dursley prepares to go to work He doesn't see the owl fly by his window On the street odd folk in wizard robes Stop and say, "Hello" On the corner is a cat he's never seen before He swears he see her with a map within her paws And the weatherman says that there are shooting stars Instead of rain---very strange Privet Drive is in my ears and in my eyes Disturbing Dursley's normal life He scowls and meanwhile back On Privet Drive Mr. Dursley is still quite upset He'd heard a whisper mention the Potters by name And there were owls flying around in the day This grey Tuesday Privet Drive is in my ears and in my eyes Dursley assumes it''ll be alright But meanwhile, later that night On Privet Drive D'dore makes his way to number 4 He meets McDougall there waiting to talk to him Then Hagrid comes flying in On a motorbike---carrying the tyke Dumbledore lays the child upon the doorstep of the Dursley house While the wizard world celebrates the fall of Voldemort They raise their goblets and purpose a toast To the boy who survived---Harry's alive Privet Drive is in my ears and in my eyes Harry's found by Dursley's wife She screams and meanwhile back Privet Drive is in my ears and in my eyes Privet Drive is in my ears and in my eyes Privet Drive _Gail B....who was thinking, when she kept the original lyric of "in my ears and in my eyes", that it would refer to HP fans listening/reading as the story unfolds _________________________________________________________________ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx From jkusalavagemd at yahoo.com Wed Aug 14 20:06:07 2002 From: jkusalavagemd at yahoo.com (jkusalavagemd) Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 20:06:07 -0000 Subject: Occam's Razor: WAS A Germanicist Revolts WAS Re: Latin in Harry Potter In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42638 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "lucky_kari" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "mrflynn6" wrote: > > > > > Avada Kedavra-without spelling changes= to take away breath > > Where do you get this translation? It's obviously corrupted Latin. > But breath is usually "animus" and several other words none of which > include "Kedavra" which doesn't look Latin. However "avada" seems to > mean "go out of" and "Kedavra" seems a corruption of the Latin- > derived English word "cadaver." Therefore, "Avada Kedavra" is a > command for something to leave the body. The soul, to be precice ie. > death. > > > GulPlum > >Grabbing Latin vocabulary out of the air without considering the > >grammar is a dangerous route to establishing false etymologies. > > Yes. It's awfully tempting just to flip through a dictionary of a > language you don't know and try to derive things, but it's a lot > harder than it looks. And Latin is a very precice language. Thanks > for doing such a good job explaining "Arabella." > > Eileen I quite agree with Eileen's observation about flipping through a dictionary. I also think that some of the etymological speculation in this thread has been simply brilliant, but there is a far simpler explanation for the naming of the "Avada Kedavra" spell. If one applies Occam's razor, one accepts that this simple explanation is likely the correct one. The incantation is but a corruption of the magic words "abra cadabra" that any stage magician would utter to cover his sleight-of-hand. It is as innately devoid of meaning as is "hocus pocus", simple rhymed nonsense syllables. What I find clever is JKR's ability to evoke some meaning such as "have the cadaver" while maintaining the sound of "abra cadabra". Haggridd From CoolPetey7 at aol.com Wed Aug 14 20:22:44 2002 From: CoolPetey7 at aol.com (petenkalpaka) Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 20:22:44 -0000 Subject: Ron Weasley's Name Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42639 Those who say its derived from the family bealing weasle-e, they're wrong. Its derived from the Running Weasle tale. The Running Weasle was this person who was very good at chess. He was almost defeated by a yellow rat. Do you see the connection? From porphyria at mindspring.com Wed Aug 14 21:38:53 2002 From: porphyria at mindspring.com (porphyria_ash) Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 21:38:53 -0000 Subject: Occam's Razor: WAS A Germanicist Revolts WAS Re: Latin in Harry Potter In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42640 I'd just like to remind everyone that Avada Kedavra derives from the *Aramaic.* (Speaking of giving other language families their due.) I shall quote from Steve's invaluable lexicon: << Avada Kedavra Aramaic: "adhadda kedhabhra" - "let the thing be destroyed". NOTE: Abracadabra is a cabbalistic charm in Judaic mythology that is supposed to bring healing powers. One of its sources is believed to be from Aramaic avada kedavra, another is the Phoenician alphabet (a- bra-ca-dabra). >> http://www.i2k.com/~svderark/lexicon/spells_a.html#avada%20kedavra ~Porphyria, who is still smarting from her disappointment in discovering that the Latin "severus" is not related to the English verb "to sever" From coriolan_cmc at hotmail.com Wed Aug 14 21:38:55 2002 From: coriolan_cmc at hotmail.com (coriolan_cmc2001) Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 21:38:55 -0000 Subject: Nick Flamel (filk) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42641 Nick Flamel (to the tune of Teen Angel) Dedicated to Gail Bohacek Hear the original at http://www.buffnet.net/~ambrosia/page5.htm THE SCENE: Gryffindor Common. The TRIO, with DUMBLEDORE, reflect on the creator of the Philosopher's Stone TRIO & DUMBLEDORE Nick Flamel, Nick Flamel, Nick Flamel, ooh, ooh RON That fateful night we found the place where Fluffy stood alert He watched whatever thing they bought from Gringott to Hogwarts TRIO Nick Flamel, just who are you? Nick Flamel, can we find you? Hagrid blurted out your name But you're not in the halls of fame HERMONE `Tis Nick Flamel we're looking for in ev'ry libr'ry book HARRY But fin'ly at a Wizard Card I chanced to take a look TRIO Nick Flamel, potion-mixer Nick Flamel, Life Elixir You produced that magic stone That Voldy tried to make his own DUMBLEDORE The stone's destroyed, and soon he'll go. This world he'll escape from; Eternal life's a great burden For those on fixed incomes TRIO & DUMBLEDORE Nick Flamel, ave atque! Nick Flamel, sayanora! May your next adventure be Six hundred years spent peacefully Nick Flamel, Perrenelle, post-retirees - CMC HARRY POTTER FILKS http://home.att.net/~coriolan/hpfilks.htm NOTES: Ave Atque = a shortening of the Latin phrase, Ave Atque Vale (Hail and Farewell). Perrenelle is Flamel's wife. From rvotaw at i-55.com Wed Aug 14 21:59:54 2002 From: rvotaw at i-55.com (Richelle Votaw) Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 16:59:54 -0500 Subject: Arabella Figg--starting over References: Message-ID: <012301c243dd$ef27edc0$18a2cdd1@istu757> No: HPFGUIDX 42642 Okay, let me try this again. :) I need to modify (or elaborate on) my theory. First, I think Arabella Figg has changed her last name from Potter to Figg. Why? Well, she couldn't live near the Dursley's as a Potter, could she? I do *not* think that she is a *blood* relative of Harry's. I think she married a Potter and is the widow of either a great uncle or grandparent of Harry's who was probably killed by Voldemort. So, why take a translated version of the last name instead of reverting to her maiden name? Could be several reasons, I'll take my top two pics. 1) She was known to death eaters by her maiden name as well and could not revert to it and be safe from them. This theory works if she is not *really* an old lady, but in disguise. 2) My preferred theory, she did not want to feel like she was not being loyal to her late husband by reverting to her own maiden name. So she took a different form of the same name. Therefore she can still feel "connected" to him. This one works if she *is* an old lady, as she would be more likely to not want to change back to her maiden name. Now, is she really cut off from the WW? Well, not completely, as I'm sure someone has to update Dumbledore on little Harry's progress. However, I'd say she spends a vast majority of her time as a Muggle at Privet Drive to keep up the act. Next, as for all names coming from Latin, well, they don't. :) But a lot of them *do* especially when there are "hidden" things about that person disguised in them. Hermione comes from Shakespeare, Dumbledore is Old English, Ron was King Arthur's spear, Krum is German for crooked etc. Finally, it is *not* possible to get an exact Latin translation of Avada Kedavra without changing the spelling. There *is* no k in Latin! And I can't come up with anything remotely relating to taking away breath as I believe was mentioned earlier (by whom I can't remember, sorry). Submission to greed was my best translation. I can't get Potter to translate to "have great power" either. Can someone tell me the root words used in the other translations? Thanks! Richelle From yrawen at ontheqt.org Wed Aug 14 22:44:08 2002 From: yrawen at ontheqt.org (yr awen) Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 18:44:08 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Arabella Figg--starting over References: <012301c243dd$ef27edc0$18a2cdd1@istu757> Message-ID: <020c01c243e4$1a13b9a0$badef718@kzo.chartermi.net> No: HPFGUIDX 42643 Wow... cool. I got my first-ever alumni magazine from my old university today (I'm an alumna... ::shiver::) and discovered, weirdly, that Philip Nel is a fellow graduate of the University of Rochester, albeit from a decade ago. Small, strange world, this. Now onto the real point: Richelle: Next, as for all names coming from Latin, well, they don't. :) But a lot of them *do* especially when there are "hidden" things about that person disguised in them. Hermione comes from Shakespeare, Dumbledore is Old English, Ron was King Arthur's spear, Krum is German for crooked etc.<<<<<<< To beat the topic of Ron's name a little more, yes, Ron *is* the spear of Arthur, but the name Ron itself, and by extension, Ronald, might either be significant or ironic, depending on how you view Ron's character and if Ron is going to be The Great Betrayer of Harry Ron, or Rone -- Layamon spells it both ways -- is the West Midlands dialect form of 'run', the Old English word that can mean, variously, 'counsel', with shadings toward 'secret counsel'; 'rune' or 'runic letter'; or 'secret/mystery.' Derivatives from 'run' include 'runere', a tale-carrier or gossip, and the verb 'runian', 'to conspire against.' For my part, though, I prefer to view Ron's name in one of the former senses, rather than the latter. I would imagine that Layamon took Rone in the sense of 'counsel', if the name of Arthur's spear is original to him. It might be his translation of a Latin source he used when writing The Brut, but be that as it may... Ronald the name means 'counsel-strong' -- sort of funny when one considers that Ron isn't exactly the best counsellor, or the one who makes it a practice of listening to counsel (I love the boy, but he *is* a bit hard-headed.) Richelle: I can't get Potter to translate to "have great power" either. Can someone tell me the root words used in the other translations? Thanks!<<<<<<< Huh. I haven't heard any of the discussion surrounding the possible Other Meanings in Harry's last name. There are times when I want to say that Potter is just... a name, just as 'Harry' is a name JKR happens to like. Then, of course, I get all speculative and completely blow it. HF. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From hunibuni22 at webtv.net Wed Aug 14 22:41:52 2002 From: hunibuni22 at webtv.net (hunibuni22 at webtv.net) Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 18:41:52 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Arabella Figg/DADA teacher Message-ID: <16265-3D5ADCB0-423@storefull-2155.public.lawson.webtv.net> No: HPFGUIDX 42644 I absolutely love this idea of Cindy's passed on by Eloise: >" Well, one of the other theories (it was Cindy's, although she later reneged > on it, despite a number of us supporting it) is that Arabella is Sirius' > girlfriend. She therefore 1) feels like an unofficial godmother and 2) is > shamed in the WW by her connection with a supposed criminal. Her exile in the > Muggle world would become more understandable then." Especially when you combine it with (I'm sorry I don't know who posted this): "Now, here's the really cool part. >Take her last name, Figg.? In Latin it (may) transulate to: >figulus = potter" Can't you just imagine, Arabella "Figg" being James Potter's sister? Or something of the like? (I'm new to the list so I haven't heard all the interesting ideas everyone has) It would explain so much and be so intruiging to the series! If Arabella was James' sister, it would be *natural* that she would date Sirius, he being James' best friend. I do have one question, however. She couldn't have possibly drank 'polyjuice potion' to age herself, as that makes you resemble a specific somebody, correct? For example, Barty Crouch II had to kidnap the real Moody and keep him hidden in a trunk in order to take pieces of his hair for the polyjuice potion. So then, if Arabella is a young witch, former girlfriend of Sirius Black and relation (Sister! Sister!) to Harry Potter, she must have used some kind of aging spell, not polyjuice. I imagine you all know this and are just *saying* polyjuice, but I wanted to make it clear (mostly to myself) that that was impossible. Hoping to hear more ideas like this... Do we really think Arabella Figg will be the next DADA teacher? If she was shamed from the WW, then I don't see why she would want to go back to Hogwarts. Why is everyone so confident that Fleur will come back as the new DADA teacher (I've seen it in posts, but with no real reason). Canon says that she's looking for a job at Hogwarts to improve her English, but I don't think she is really experienced and anyway, is she old enough to be finished with school? Cedric was in his 6th year, am I right? So he had one more to go before "graduating". Perhaps the same goes for Fleur? Okay, now I'm just rambling... input would be lovely! Thanks! Tara From dedanaan at shaw.ca Wed Aug 14 22:42:46 2002 From: dedanaan at shaw.ca (karen mcvicker) Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 17:42:46 -0500 Subject: A question about Unforgivables (specifically Imperius). Message-ID: <004201c243e3$e924dea0$6401a8c0@dedanaan> No: HPFGUIDX 42645 Hi everyone, I was wondering about the Unforgivables and how to end the effects. Can you use finite incantatem? Does the finite incantatem spell have to be performed by the person who cast the spell in the first place? In the fourth book, Crouch Jr. broke the Imperius spell himself. Was the spell recast constantly to keep him under it, or is the duration as long as the caster decides? Karen [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From rvotaw at i-55.com Wed Aug 14 23:15:09 2002 From: rvotaw at i-55.com (Richelle Votaw) Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 18:15:09 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Arabella Figg/DADA teacher References: <16265-3D5ADCB0-423@storefull-2155.public.lawson.webtv.net> Message-ID: <002001c243e8$75587400$e8a1cdd1@istu757> No: HPFGUIDX 42646 Tara writes: > Can't you just imagine, Arabella "Figg" being James Potter's sister? Or > something of the like? (I'm new to the list so I haven't heard all the > interesting ideas everyone has) It would explain so much and be so > intruiging to the series! If Arabella was James' sister, it would be > *natural* that she would date Sirius, he being James' best friend. I really don't think Arabella Figg could be James' sister because it would make her as close a blood relation to Harry as Petunia Dursley. And thus it wouldn't make sense why she couldn't have kept Harry (even disguised as a Muggle) instead of the horrid Dursleys. > > Hoping to hear more ideas like this... Do we really think Arabella Figg > will be the next DADA teacher? If she was shamed from the WW, then I > don't see why she would want to go back to Hogwarts. Why is everyone so Well we have no evidence that she was shamed from the WW. It sounds more like a volunteer mission to me. And if she was Harry's great aunt by marriage and the only other surviving "Potter" albeit by marriage not blood, she would feel responsible for him. Yet she coudn't provide the protection that a blood relative can, if it's the blood relation that is keeping Harry safe at the Dursleys. Richelle From irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com Wed Aug 14 23:23:07 2002 From: irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com (Irene Mikhlin) Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 00:23:07 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Occam's Razor: WAS A Germanicist Revolts WAS Re: Latin in Harry Potter References: Message-ID: <00d701c243e9$8f0e1160$4f8401d5@oemcomputer> No: HPFGUIDX 42647 "jkusalavagemd" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "lucky_kari" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "mrflynn6" wrote: > > > > > > > > Avada Kedavra-without spelling changes= to take away breath > > > > Where do you get this translation? It's obviously corrupted Latin. > I quite agree with Eileen's observation about flipping through a > dictionary. I also think that some of the etymological speculation > in this thread has been simply brilliant, but there is a far simpler > explanation for the naming of the "Avada Kedavra" spell. If one > applies Occam's razor, one accepts that this simple explanation is > likely the correct one. Wow, not every day you get to play Sherlock Holmes and say "You are all wrong". :-) Avada Kedavra sounded positively Semitic to me, so I looked it up in the relevant dictionaries. Lo and behold, it's Arameic phrase, meaning "let the thing be destroyed". So not everything in Potterverse is based on Latin. Irene From jkusalavagemd at yahoo.com Wed Aug 14 22:43:30 2002 From: jkusalavagemd at yahoo.com (jkusalavagemd) Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 22:43:30 -0000 Subject: Arabella Figg--starting over In-Reply-To: <020c01c243e4$1a13b9a0$badef718@kzo.chartermi.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42648 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "yr awen" wrote: > Richelle: > I can't get Potter to translate to "have great power" either. Can someone tell me the root words used in the other > translations? Thanks!<<<<<<< > > Huh. I haven't heard any of the discussion surrounding the possible Other Meanings in Harry's last name. There are times when I want to say that Potter is just... a name, just as 'Harry' is a name JKR happens to like. Then, of course, I get all speculative and completely blow it. > > HF. > My Latin is rather rusty, but could it not be from "possum, potere...", "I am able?" I think the second "t" in Potter makes this unlikely, but I can see the possible line of reasoning. Haggridd From mailowen at aol.com Wed Aug 14 23:41:39 2002 From: mailowen at aol.com (dowen331) Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 23:41:39 -0000 Subject: Voldemort murders in GoF Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42649 This is my first posting to this group. Forgive me if I'm repeating an old question, but I can't find the answer and it's really bugging me... In the first chapter of GoF, Voldemort clearly says, "one more death and our path to Harry Potter is clear." What death is he referring to? Here's where I've gotten so far in my thinking on the possibilities: Bertha Jorkins was already dead at this point; Mad- Eye Moody was not to be killed, but kept under the Imperious Curse; Mr. Crouch was also not killed until he tried to escape the curse. Cedric Diggory was not expected to come with Harry with the cup, so that can't be who Voldemort's referring to. Who else is there? I can't think of anyone else killed in the plot who stood between Voldemort and Harry. Any ideas? Debbie From zeff8 at attbi.com Wed Aug 14 23:20:45 2002 From: zeff8 at attbi.com (zeff8) Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 19:20:45 -0400 Subject: Fred and George's next prank Message-ID: <017b01c243e9$37ecc520$5405f50c@attbi.com> No: HPFGUIDX 42650 Was thinking about Fred and George today at work. They like to create pratical jokes, like the ton toung Toffie, and the Canary Creme puffs. How about this in movie/book 5 or 6: Scene: Madam Hootch's flying lesson for the first years. We see Fred and George sticking their heads out from behind a wall in the back ground as Madam Hootch tells the students the famous words,"step up to your broom sticks and say UP, then mount your broom stick" A new first year Gryiffinore student named "Floyd" (or whatever name) says "UP" and his broom comes up to his hand,.. he mounts the stick, and "POOF", it turns into one of them old "horsie head" sticks kids used to ride back in the early part of the 1900's. Everyone ends up laughing.. First Fake wands, now fake broom sticks.. what will Fred and George come up with next? From SaalsG at cni-usa.com Thu Aug 15 00:18:03 2002 From: SaalsG at cni-usa.com (Grace) Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 19:18:03 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Arabella Figg--starting over References: Message-ID: <00ae01c243f1$3958dea0$474053d1@SaalsD> No: HPFGUIDX 42651 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "yr awen" wrote: > Richelle: > I can't get Potter to translate to "have great power" either. Can someone tell me the root words used in the other > translations? Thanks!<<<<<<< > > Huh. I haven't heard any of the discussion surrounding the possible Other Meanings in Harry's last name. There are times when I want to say that Potter is just... a name, just as 'Harry' is a name JKR happens to like. Then, of course, I get all speculative and completely blow it. > > HF. > >My Latin is rather rusty, but could it not be from "possum, >potere...", "I am able?" I think the second "t" in Potter makes this >unlikely, but I can see the possible line of reasoning. >Haggridd I think that one is pretty straightforward. "Potter" is a very old name. That's what you call people who make pottery, and England has a very rich and old history on potters, the different types of kilns, stoneware, earthenware, fine china (once they got the secret of high fire pottery from the Chinese) and crockery. Clay and glaze recipes are handed down to the next generation. There are regions of the country that are famous for certain glazes and the pots they produce. Grace From psychic_serpent at yahoo.com Thu Aug 15 00:41:45 2002 From: psychic_serpent at yahoo.com (Barb P) Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 17:41:45 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Occam's Razor: WAS A Germanicist Revolts WAS Re: Latin in Harry Potter In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020815004145.13061.qmail@web13003.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 42652 jkusalavagemd wrote: I also think that some of the etymological speculation in this thread has been simply brilliant, but there is a far simpler explanation for the naming of the "Avada Kedavra" spell. If one applies Occam's razor, one accepts that this simple explanation is likely the correct one. The incantation is but a corruption of the magic words "abra cadabra" that any stage magician would utter to cover his sleight-of-hand. It is as innately devoid of meaning as is "hocus pocus", simple rhymed nonsense syllables. What I find clever is JKR's ability to evoke some meaning such as "have the cadaver" while maintaining the sound of "abra cadabra". Haggridd You're probably right and you're probably wrong. ;) The "right" comes from associating Avada Kedavra with abracadabra. The "wrong" comes from saying that it has no meaning. If you follow any of these links: http://www.harrypotterfans.net/potterica/origins.html http://www.theninemuses.net/hp/4.html http://www.wizardwords.net/ http://potternetlink.tripod.com/name/ you'll find that Avada Kedavra is Aramaic for "let the thing be destroyed" or "may the thing be destroyed" and is thought to be an early, uncorrupted version of "abracadabra." It is merely serendipity that the "Kedavra" portion reminds us strongly of the English word "cadaver," which is Latin in origin. It is also notable, however, that Aramaic is neither Germanic or a Romance language, but a Semitic language, hinting at an ancient origin for this spell. --Barb --------------------------------- Do You Yahoo!? HotJobs, a Yahoo! service - Search Thousands of New Jobs [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From psychic_serpent at yahoo.com Thu Aug 15 00:47:25 2002 From: psychic_serpent at yahoo.com (Barb P) Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 17:47:25 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Ron Weasley's Name In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020815004725.15062.qmail@web13003.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 42653 petenkalpaka wrote: Those who say its derived from the family bealing weasle-e, they're wrong. Its derived from the Running Weasle tale. The Running Weasle was this person who was very good at chess. He was almost defeated by a yellow rat. Do you see the connection? Has JKR ever verified this? I've seen numerous things about the Running Weasel story, but I've never seen JKR establish this as the reason for the family name. We do, however, know that she is a Terry Pratchett fan, and she has in fact used numerous things from Discworld novels in the HP books. (One of his books is, for instance, "The Wyrd Sisters." A musical group called "The Weird Sisters" provided the entertainment at the Yule Ball. This is just one Pratchett-esque moment in the HP books.) In the very first Discworld novel, "The Color of Magic," one of the main characters is named Weasel. Just as certain similarties between the HP books and Roald Dahl novels are no coincidence, I believe it is also no coincidence when similar things are found in HP and Terry Pratchett's writing. Call it an homage. --Barb --------------------------------- Do You Yahoo!? HotJobs, a Yahoo! service - Search Thousands of New Jobs [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From meboriqua at aol.com Thu Aug 15 01:56:57 2002 From: meboriqua at aol.com (jenny_ravenclaw) Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 01:56:57 -0000 Subject: Fred and George: should we worry? (Was: next prank) In-Reply-To: <017b01c243e9$37ecc520$5405f50c@attbi.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42654 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "zeff8" wrote: > Was thinking about Fred and George today at work. They like to create pratical jokes, like the ton toung Toffie, and the Canary Creme puffs.> They sure do! I like the imagery of the prank you came up with. I'm going to take your post in a completely different direction, though, and I hope you don't mind, because this is something I've been thinking about for a while. Fred and George are quite the loveable scoundrels, are they not? Or are they? Has anyone ever thought of their pranks as a bit mean-spirited? When I first read GoF, I delighted in the Ton-Tongue Toffee scene. Boy, did I love picturing Dudley on his hands and knees in the living room, scooping up as many of the "brightly colored" toffees as his greedy hands could find. My mother, however, didn't think it was so funny. She thought Fred and George were mean. Hmmm, maybe they are. If I look at their "pranks" from another perspective, they could make the twins a force not to be reckoned with. Turning Ron's stuffed animal into a spider (CoS), changing and hiding Percy's Prefect badge (PoA) and making snacks that turn people into canaries (GoF) may not be so funny if they happened to you. Ah, and in FBWTF, they obviously destroyed a Puffskein because, as Ron writes to Harry "they used it for bludger practice". At some point they also feed fireworks to a salamander. While I have to admit their pranks are quite funny, what they did to the animals was not. How popular should they be? I wouldn't call them bullies like Draco and his cronies, but how must Neville feel about them? Even Harry worries that Fred and George will think he has gone soft if they find out his scar hurts. At the end of GoF, Fred and George show us a real glimpse of their tempers when they take an active part in hexing Draco and Co., and then walking *on* them after Draco and Co. are out cold. Many people dislike Snape, Draco, Rita Skeeter and some aren't even crazy about Ron - all because of their attitudes. Fred and George are funny and fun, and obviously talented wizards, but are they nice? Should we applaud them for their prank inventions and encourage them to do more? I for one would love to see them open a new jokes shop, but maybe they should be steered away from their current passions for practical jokes. Maybe they should be more heavily recruited to help Dumbledore and Harry in their battle against Voldemort and the DEs. Maybe they should treat Molly with more respect. I mean, should we like them as much as we do? Why do we like them so much more than we like Snape or Draco? I like them very much, but I'd like to know what you all think. --jenny from ravenclaw, who would not like to be on the receiving end of one of Fred and George's pranks, and might not even laugh if I saw one in action, but I sure love reading them! ***************************** From psychchick04 at yahoo.com Thu Aug 15 01:49:47 2002 From: psychchick04 at yahoo.com (Jacqueline Hendries) Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 18:49:47 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Ron Weasley's Name In-Reply-To: <20020815004725.15062.qmail@web13003.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20020815014947.88620.qmail@web9203.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 42655 Barb says: One of his books is, for instance, > "The Wyrd Sisters." A musical group called "The Weird Sisters" > provided the entertainment at the Yule Ball. This is just one > Pratchett-esque moment in the HP books I always assumed that this was an homage to Shakespeare - the three Weird Sisters in MacBeth. I suppose it could be a reference to Pratchett, but the name (phrase?) has certainly been around a lot longer than that. ~ Jackie ===== also known as Aloha Moira Read Potters, A History - Chapter 9 is coming soon to a Schnoogle near you! www.schnoogle.com/authorLinks/Aloha_Moira/Potters_A_History __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? HotJobs - Search Thousands of New Jobs http://www.hotjobs.com From yrawen at ontheqt.org Thu Aug 15 02:32:43 2002 From: yrawen at ontheqt.org (yr awen) Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 22:32:43 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Fred and George: should we worry? (Was: next prank) References: Message-ID: <025301c24404$08eb6e00$badef718@kzo.chartermi.net> No: HPFGUIDX 42656 Jenny from Ravenclaw: Fred and George are quite the loveable scoundrels, are they not? Or are they? Has anyone ever thought of their pranks as a bit mean-spirited?<<<<<< Oh, for certain. Pranks usually have the element of potential humiliation in them. I believe James Thurber said something to that effect, on the 'necessity' for humiliation in humor. We laugh at the discomfiture of another person because it 1.) builds up our own egos and 2.) hasn't happened to us. Hmmm, maybe they are. If I look at their "pranks" from another perspective, they could make the twins a force not to be reckoned with.<<<<<<<< I definitely agree with you here -- you don't mess with the twins. Turning Ron's stuffed animal into a spider (CoS), changing and hiding Percy's Prefect badge (PoA) and making snacks that turn people into canaries (GoF) may not be so funny if they happened to you. Ah, and in FBWTF, they obviously destroyed a Puffskein because, as Ron writes to Harry "they used it for bludger practice". At some point they also feed fireworks to a salamander. While I have to admit their pranks are quite funny, what they did to the animals was not. [snip the rest]<<<<<<<<< By way of comment on "may not be so funny if they happened to you"... well, pranks are rarely funny when inflicted on you, as opposed to other people. See mangled James Thurber quote above. To sort of divide this up a bit, the twins seem to ply their trade on two levels: retributive, and for the hell of it. Percy's stuffed-shirtedness and Malfoy's arrogance are natural targets (such traits are, after all, the target of pranksters and satirists the world over); they're practically *begging* to be taken down a peg or two by having Head Boy badges enchanted to read 'Bighead Boy' or be hexed into oblivion. They take advantage of Dudley in the same way that Hagrid does, by playing on Dudley's greed and making him suffer for it. On the other hand, you have things like wanton Puffskein destruction, turning poor Ron's teddy bear into a spider, and salamander torture -- although, with regards to the last point, salamanders are immune to fire (yet I'm sure the salamander didn't appreciate flying around the room while fireworks were going off inside it.) I do sort of agree with you that the twins' "nothing is sacred" attitude can be a bit *too* cavalier -- I imagine that, if I knew them, they would drive me up the wall. To be honest, I probably wouldn't be able to stand them; as a reader, though, I'm at least allowed to sit back and snicker at their antics until I'm forced to examine them in more detail. Jenny: Many people dislike Snape, Draco, Rita Skeeter and some aren't even crazy about Ron - all because of their attitudes. Fred and George are funny and fun, and obviously talented wizards, but are they nice?<<<<<<< When you say 'people', are you talking about the reading audience or the wizarding world? The WW seems to approve of them on the whole, with the exception of Mrs. Weasley. Additionally, 'nice' is a fairly ambiguous term; I agree that some of the stuff they do can be pretty mean, but they're also pretty staunch allies in Harry's camp. I'm thinking here of the ironic incident in CoS, when they follow Harry around, shouting that he's the Heir of Slytherin and to watch out for the "seriously evil wizard coming through" -- it's obvious they believe the allegations of Harry are complete crock, but aren't afraid to play on the other students' superstitions. And really, with some of the hysterical reactions circulating via the Hufflepuff gossip chain, I have to say those kids deserve it. Jenny: Should we applaud them for their prank inventions and encourage them to do more? I for one would love to see them open a new joke shop, but maybe they should be steered away from their current passions for practical jokes.<<<<<<<< ::pokes:: Channelling Molly are you I agree that maybe a bit more maturity wouldn't go amiss. On the other hand, laughter is the best medicine -- and can be a good defense, as you mention when you say F&G should maybe start working a bit harder against Voldy & co. HF. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From rvotaw at i-55.com Thu Aug 15 02:56:58 2002 From: rvotaw at i-55.com (Richelle Votaw) Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 21:56:58 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Arabella Figg--starting over References: <00ae01c243f1$3958dea0$474053d1@SaalsD> Message-ID: <007201c24407$6c64cb40$c9a0cdd1@istu757> No: HPFGUIDX 42657 Grace, on the topic of Potter being translated: > I think that one is pretty straightforward. "Potter" is a very old name. > That's what you call people who make pottery, and England has a very rich > and old history on potters, the different types of kilns, stoneware, > earthenware, fine china (once they got the secret of high fire pottery from > the Chinese) and crockery. Clay and glaze recipes are handed down to the > next generation. There are regions of the country that are famous for > certain glazes and the pots they produce. Let me fix this, since I've started it there's been a branch shoot out in the wrong direction. :) I never intended to translate "Potter" into Latin. Only to translate Figg into Latin, which came out as "Potter." I don't think there's any hidden meaning in Potter itself. Just trying to clarify, I've gotten things rather muddled, I do believe. :) Richelle From rvotaw at i-55.com Thu Aug 15 03:02:14 2002 From: rvotaw at i-55.com (Richelle Votaw) Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 22:02:14 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Voldemort murders in GoF References: Message-ID: <007901c24408$295bbba0$c9a0cdd1@istu757> No: HPFGUIDX 42658 Debbie writes: > In the first chapter of GoF, Voldemort clearly says, "one more death > and our path to Harry Potter is clear." What death is he referring > to? Here's where I've gotten so far in my thinking on the > possibilities: Bertha Jorkins was already dead at this point; Mad- > Eye Moody was not to be killed, but kept under the Imperious Curse; > Mr. Crouch was also not killed until he tried to escape the curse. > Cedric Diggory was not expected to come with Harry with the cup, so > that can't be who Voldemort's referring to. Who else is there? I > can't think of anyone else killed in the plot who stood between > Voldemort and Harry. Any ideas? Well you know, I haven't reread GoF all the way through yet, and I'd never thought about it. To quote Voldemort precisely, he says "One more murder . . . my faithful servant at Hogwarts . . . Harry Potter is as good as mine, Wormtail." Shortly after this he murders Frank Bryce. Which I don't think he knew was there, so he can't have been referring to that. Was it Voldemort's intention to kill Moody, not keep him locked up in his trunk? If so, why wasn't he killed? Now, who was the faithful servant at Hogwarts? Is he referring to Moody/Crouch here? Yet this is happening in the summer, while Harry is still at Privet Drive. Quite a while before term begins. And Moody/Crouch arrived late, so he technically wasn't at Hogwarts. He could've had the position, I suppose, but it implies someone *already* at Hogwarts. It is written to sound like it's someone who's been at Hogwarts, but that could be to make us suspect Snape again. Or not? Thoughts on the matter? Richelle From mrflynn6 at yahoo.com Thu Aug 15 03:31:16 2002 From: mrflynn6 at yahoo.com (mrflynn6) Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 03:31:16 -0000 Subject: How did Dobby know the Chamber was going to be opened? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42659 It just occured to me, how did Dobby know the Chamber was going to be opened and Harry was going to be in danger if he returned to Hogwarts? Wormtail was still scabbers and not in touch with Voldermort yet, the DE's were not in contact with Voldermort, especially the Malfoy's. Barty, Jr. was still under his fathers control. How did Dobby know? I should check my book for the exact quote, but Draco said to Harry/Ron as Crabbe and Goyle under polyjuice potion that his dad didn't know who opened the Chamber. One would presume that Dobby knew from Malfoy's, but if they didn't know, how did he find out? Any ideas? Gretchen From rvotaw at i-55.com Thu Aug 15 03:38:04 2002 From: rvotaw at i-55.com (Richelle Votaw) Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 22:38:04 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] How did Dobby know the Chamber was going to be opened? References: Message-ID: <001301c2440d$2a4dca80$f1a1cdd1@istu757> No: HPFGUIDX 42660 Gretchen writes: > I should check my book for the exact quote, but Draco said to > Harry/Ron as Crabbe and Goyle under polyjuice potion that his dad > didn't know who opened the Chamber. One would presume that Dobby > knew from Malfoy's, but if they didn't know, how did he find out? My best guess is that since Lucius Malfoy planted the diary he strongly suspected it would happen. But Draco had no clue. He's not told near as much by his father as he *thinks* he's told. I get the general impression that he wants everyone to think he and his dad discuss all this sort of thing all the time, but really he only picks up on a few things. Richelle From kkearney at students.miami.edu Thu Aug 15 03:51:23 2002 From: kkearney at students.miami.edu (corinthum) Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 03:51:23 -0000 Subject: Molly and Arthur's past (Was Re: Latin-Arabella Figg) In-Reply-To: <01f201c243d6$8233f260$badef718@kzo.chartermi.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42661 I made the quick comment: > However, I believe she is in constant contact with > Dumbledore as well as many others in the "old crowd" (which, by the > way, I don't believe includes Arthur or Molly Weasley; but I digress) And HF hyperventilated while saying: > No, no, no! ::jumps up and down:: You're not allowed to digress and > then not say anything! Elaborate! Pleeaaase! ::stops jumping up and >down, pants:: In, out... Why do you think this? I'm not challenging or > anything, just curious. Sorry, didn't mean to leave you hanging. :) Many people seem to think that because Dumbledore trusted Arthur and Molly enough to let them into his "new crowd", they must have been a member of the "old crowd". I disagree. I base this assumption on a few small events. As always, I don't have the book with me, so forgive any mis-paraphrasing. First of all, Molly's reaction to Sirius. When he appears, she doesn't react like one horrified at seeing a traitor, an old friend/coworker who turned against her. She is simply horrified at coming face to face with someone she believes is a murderer. And she calls him by his full name, Sirius Black. If she knew him, I think she would have simply called him Sirius. After all, do you ever address those you know by their full names? I know I don't. But I do refer to public figures in this way. It's how they are usually referred on the news and in newspapaers, and therefore the full name sticks in my mind. Since Dumbledore asked Sirius to summon the old crowd, it seems that the members of this crowd knew each other. Also, Dumbledore seems to feel it necessary to question whether he can count on Molly and Arthur. I don't believe he does this because he has any doubt as to their loyalty, but rather is making sure the two of them are willing to get involved in what could turn out to be a very dangerous mission. He does not ask any of the others if they are willing; they have already proved this to him. Finally, despite all wild (and I don't mean to be offensive by saying this; it's simply my opinion) theories about Arthur the Auror and Molly the future DADA professor, I simply don't see either of them in these roles. Especially Molly. I would be very disappointed if she turned out to be some dark arts defense genious. I think her role of mother figure to Harry is much more important and would be obscured by any wild character changes like this. We have enough former heroes; I am looking forward to two very normal, everyday wizards becoming new heroes. HF also wrote: > To be fair (and academically correct), no language is completely >pure. As long as it's existed in written form, English has borrowed >from Latin, to varying extents. Most Germanic languages have >appropriated little bits here and there -- blame the Romans for >banging around Gaul and Germania and places like that. 'Candel' >(modern 'candle') was a Latin loanword, and employed in all sorts of >Anglo-Latin compounds, for example. We do have a mixed heritage, all >of us :-) Oh, I certainly won't disagree with that. However, many languages contain similar words which come from different sources. Often, coincidences in words are simply that. I'm sure I could choose to analyze the names in Harry Potter based on Latin, Old English, Japanese, PIE, Quenya, anything, and come up with some possible roots. But it wouldn't mean anything. From purple_801999 at yahoo.com Thu Aug 15 01:57:26 2002 From: purple_801999 at yahoo.com (purple_801999) Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 01:57:26 -0000 Subject: Arabella Figg/DADA teacher In-Reply-To: <16265-3D5ADCB0-423@storefull-2155.public.lawson.webtv.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42662 > Tara wrote- > I do have one question, however. She couldn't have possibly drank > 'polyjuice potion' to age herself, as that makes you resemble a specific > somebody, correct? For example, Barty Crouch II had to kidnap the real > Moody and keep him hidden in a trunk in order to take pieces of his hair > for the polyjuice potion. So then, if Arabella is a young witch, former girlfriend of Sirius Black and relation (Sister! Sister!) to Harry Potter, she must have used some kind of aging spell, not polyjuice. I imagine you all know this and are just *saying* polyjuice, but I wanted to make it clear (mostly to myself) that that was impossible. > Arabella has probably taken an ageing potion like George in Fred in GoF but who knows what cool disguises the WW has up it's sleeve. I think Arabella may be a friend of Lily's especially if this is the book where we finally learn more about Lily. She could even be Harry's godmother. But does that seem vaugely sexist to anyone? That all of James close friends are men so Lily's close friends would be women? I think I'm thinking of Hermione when I type this. Her two closest friends are male (not counting Neville), I don't even know of any other girls Hermione even pals around with the exception of Ginny. But it could just be in her nature to befriend boys rather than girls. -Olivia Grey From purple_801999 at yahoo.com Thu Aug 15 02:20:40 2002 From: purple_801999 at yahoo.com (purple_801999) Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 02:20:40 -0000 Subject: Fred and George: should we worry? (Was: next prank) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42663 Jenny wrote- > Hmmm, maybe they are. If I look at their "pranks" from another > perspective, they could make the twins a force not to be reckoned > with. Turning Ron's stuffed animal into a spider (CoS), changing and > hiding Percy's Prefect badge (PoA) and making snacks that turn people > into canaries (GoF) may not be so funny if they happened to you. Well, to be fair when Fred turned Ron's bear into a spider Ron was three so Fred was probably about five or six and may not have been in full control of his magical abilities at the time. When do those kick in you think? > >Fred and George are funny and fun, and obviously talented wizards, >but are they nice? > Should we applaud them for their prank inventions and encourage >them to do more? I for one would love to see them open a new jokes >shop, but maybe they should be steered away from their current >passions for practical jokes. Maybe they should treat Molly with >more respect. I mean, should we like them as much as we do? Why do >we like them so much more than we like Snape or Draco? I like them >very much, but I'd like to know what you all think. > I think Fred and George are just the gregarious results of growing up with a house full of brothers to compete with. They pick on Percy because he's a stuck-up prig and they have a natural ally in each other. They are also teenagers who still have a lot of growing up to do And who knows what Charlie and Bill were like in their Hogwarts's days.Plus the Weasley twins have that certain I don't know what that helps them get away with murder and that can take you a long way in the world. Look at Bill Clinton. -Olivia From jodel at aol.com Thu Aug 15 02:42:05 2002 From: jodel at aol.com (jodel at aol.com) Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 22:42:05 EDT Subject: Arabella Figg and other considerations Message-ID: <18a.c717be2.2a8c6efd@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 42664 Interesting debate regarding the possible association between Arabella Figg and the Potters on the basis of a latin root word. And I'm not knocking it. It's a little far fetched for a book marketed for the middle school set, but not so far that it isn't at least marginally possible, and fun to toss about in any case. But the level of controversy over why Harry is at the Dursleys if Mrs Figg is a Potter is is a bit over the tp. It is just too simple to explain away the contradiction to spend all this time arguing about it. If the protection that Dumbledore proposes requires that Harry be in the custody of a BLOOD relative, that could be all the reason it takes. The Dursleys are directly stated to be his ONLY remaining blood relations. Ergo, Mrs Figg, if she is actually a Potter is not actually related to Harry by blood. Allow me to direct the attention of all those taking part in this debate to one clear and unambiguous statement which concerns Arabella Figg. She is consistently refered to as MRS Figg. Mrs., not Miss. IF Mrs. Figg is a Potter she would have to be a relative by MARRIAGE not BLOOD. Particularly if, as someone pointed out, she turns out to be something like a great-aunt. I can easily accept that she might be James Potter's uncle's widow. And NO blood relation to Harry, thereby being inelligible to keep him safe acording to the requirements of the wards what Dumbledore means to use to safeguard him. However much she might want to. But Dumbledore can't tell her that she can't take up residence in the neighborhood and keep an eye on the situation. In fact he may be very glad she did, or may have suggested it himself. But, in any case, given that Dumbledore calls her Figg, when he is speaking to Sirius, and well away from the Dursleys, I am assuming that it is, in fact, her real name. ------------------------------------------ Aloha Moira writes; >>One last thing... would Snape and Lily have to be twins in order to be in the same year at Hogwarts? All this year/when one gets the letter/etc. stuff really confuses me :P<< Well, I don't believe for a minute that Snape was any relation whatsoever to Lily, but It does occur to me that it might be possible for two siblings to be in the same school year without being twins. But they would have to be born within the same 12 month period. All school systems have a cut-off date dividing who goes to school in this academic year and who has to wait until next. If the older of two siblings is born right after that cut-off date, and a second child is born less than 12 months later, both would start school in the same year. For example. There is strong indication that Hermione, born September 19, just missed the cut-off date by less than three weeks. If her parents had produced another child born, say, the following August 31, there could have been two Granger children in Harry's year. But they would still not be twins. -JOdel From judyshapiro at earthlink.net Thu Aug 15 05:51:12 2002 From: judyshapiro at earthlink.net (judyserenity) Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 05:51:12 -0000 Subject: Voldemort murders in GoF In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42665 Dowen331 wrote: > Forgive me if I'm repeating > an old question, but I can't find the > answer and it's really bugging me... It's been discussed before, but that's OK. There's only so many new things we can think of to talk about while we wait for Book 5. Dowen331 continued: > In the first chapter of GoF, Voldemort clearly says, "one more > death and our path to Harry Potter is clear." > What death is he referring to? Unfortunately, I don't think there's a good answer to this question. I think this is just a plain flint -- an error. JKR has said in interviews that she had to do some major reworking on the plot of GOF. My guess is that this line of Voldemort's slipped through the cracks; JKR changed what Voldemort did, but not what he said. Judy Serenity From the.gremlin at verizon.net Thu Aug 15 05:10:51 2002 From: the.gremlin at verizon.net (ats_fhc3) Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 05:10:51 -0000 Subject: Voldemort murders in GoF In-Reply-To: <007901c24408$295bbba0$c9a0cdd1@istu757> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42666 Richelle Votaw wrote: > Now, who was the faithful servant at Hogwarts? Is he referring to > Moody/Crouch here? Yet this is happening in the summer, while Harry is > still at Privet Drive. Quite a while before term begins. And Moody/Crouch > arrived late, so he technically wasn't at Hogwarts. He could've had the > position, I suppose, but it implies someone *already* at Hogwarts. It is > written to sound like it's someone who's been at Hogwarts, but that could be > to make us suspect Snape again. Or not? Thoughts on the matter? V-Mort has already thought out the plan to put Crouch Jr. at Hogwarts. Crouch told Dumbledore (under the influence of Veritaserum), "He [V-Mort] told me he needed to place a faithful servant at Hogwarts" (pg. 687). So when V-Mort is saying "my faithful servant at Hogwarts", he's saying, 'this is what I have left to do before Harry Potter is mine. I have to murder one more person, and then put my faithful servant at Hogwarts.' Now, for the one more murder. This is kind of weak, but I'm thinking V-Mort was planning to kill Moody, based out this statement from Crouch Jr. (again, under the influence of Veritaserum), "I kept him [Moody] alive, under the Imperious Curse. I wanted to be able to question him. To find out about his past, learn his habits, so that I could fool even Dumbledore. I also needed his hair to make the Polyjuice Potion" (pg. 689). Perhaps V-Mort was planning on killing Moody, but Crouch Jr. realized that it was better to keep him alive. WHich brings me to ask this question: If someone is dead, can you still use their hair to make Polyjuice Potion, and look like them? -Acire Sadeur From eloiseherisson at aol.com Thu Aug 15 06:49:42 2002 From: eloiseherisson at aol.com (eloiseherisson at aol.com) Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 02:49:42 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Arabella Figg and the Polyjuice Potion (no Latin!) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42667 Tara: > Can't you just imagine, Arabella "Figg" being James Potter's sister? Or > something of the like? (I'm new to the list so I haven't heard all the > interesting ideas everyone has) It would explain so much and be so > intruiging to the series! If Arabella was James' sister, it would be > *natural* that she would date Sirius, he being James' best friend. > > I do have one question, however. She couldn't have possibly drank > 'polyjuice potion' to age herself, as that makes you resemble a specific > somebody, correct? For example, Barty Crouch II had to kidnap the real > Moody and keep him hidden in a trunk in order to take pieces of his hair > for the polyjuice potion. So then, if Arabella is a young witch, former > girlfriend of Sirius Black and relation (Sister! Sister!) to Harry > Potter, she must have used some kind of aging spell, not polyjuice. I > imagine you all know this and are just *saying* polyjuice, but I wanted > to make it clear (mostly to myself) that that was impossible. > I definitely prefer Richelle's new explanation of her theory, in which she suggests that Arabella could have been *married* to a Potter (there's another dead Potter to explain) because of the blood relative protection thing (if that's what it is). However, that's not terribly compatible with the Sirius' girlfriend thing and I wanted to comment on the polujuice objections. The idea that Arabella is polyjuiced came out of someone's observation that her house smells of cabbages and that we learn in COS that this is the smell (taste? A child has the book at the moment) of Polyjuice. One of those details that Must Be Significant. (Sorry, I can't credit the observant listie who noticed this.) I myself brought up the fact that there must be a hair donor somewhere and envisage an elderly and by now rather bald witch (Arabella's mother or aunt, or Dumbledore's sister, perhaps?) who willingly gives her hairs for the potion. I don't think she's got a little old lady captive in the back bedroom! (Although that would give Arabella a bit of 'Edge', come to think of it!) It could of sourse, be an aging spell/potion. But we then have less canonical justification for the theory. We could say that there has to be some reason why we were introduced to the concept in GOF, but we have no specific connection to Mrs Figg, whilst the smell of cabbages relates both to Mrs Figg *and* to a potion we know can be used to alter appearances. Eloise who would have pointed Tara to the original posts, but has no access to her old filing cabinet at the moment and isn't sure where to start searching in the messages. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From tmarends at yahoo.com Thu Aug 15 07:10:45 2002 From: tmarends at yahoo.com (tmarends) Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 07:10:45 -0000 Subject: Ron Weasley's Name In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42668 petenkalpaka wrote: > Those who say its derived from the family bealing weasle-e, they're > wrong. > > Its derived from the Running Weasle tale. The Running Weasle was > this person who was very good at chess. He was almost defeated by a > yellow rat. Do you see the connection? That just reminded me that when we first truly meet Ron it's on the train to Hogwarts in SS/PS, and there he attempts a spell to turn his rat yellow. The rat turns out to be Peter Petigrew who is yellow... yellow, of course, being the color of cowardice. Tim A. From eloiseherisson at aol.com Thu Aug 15 07:26:37 2002 From: eloiseherisson at aol.com (eloiseherisson at aol.com) Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 03:26:37 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] How did Dobby know the Chamber was going to be opened? Message-ID: <161.124f0974.2a8cb1ad@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 42669 Gretchen; > It just occured to me, how did Dobby know the Chamber was going to be > opened and Harry was going to be in danger if he returned to > Hogwarts? Wormtail was still scabbers and not in touch with > Voldermort yet, the DE's were not in contact with Voldermort, > especially the Malfoy's. Barty, Jr. was still under his fathers > control. How did Dobby know? Eloise: The opening of the Chamber in CoS, If I understand it correctly, had nothing to do with Voldemort or the other DEs. I'm not sure why you bring up Scabbers or Crouch Jr. Lucius Malfoy had Riddle's diary. I believe that he, too, communicated with Tom's memory through the diary and hatched with him the plot to open the Chamber. Dobby knows because he's the House Elf and therefore privilege to family secrets. This isn't as strange as it sounds when you consider how servants were traditionally treated in old aristocratic homes. They would hear all sorts of stuff, for instance at the dinner table, where they were 'invisible' and regarded as part of the furniture (imagine - otherwise no one could talk about anything as informal opportunities for conversation were rare in old-fashioned, upper class houses). They were simply expected *not to hear*, or certainly not to pass on outside the house, what did not concern them. He may have witnessed Lucius communicating with the diary, or heard him telling Narcissa of his plan, for instance. Gretchen: > I should check my book for the exact quote, but Draco said to > Harry/Ron as Crabbe and Goyle under polyjuice potion that his dad > didn't know who opened the Chamber. One would presume that Dobby > knew from Malfoy's, but if they didn't know, how did he find out? Eloise: He said (IIRC) that the chamber being last opened 50 years ago, it was before his father's time, so he didn't know about it. How very convenient! Lucius has been a little economical with the truth with his son, I feel! He *does* know about the last time (IMO), but not from direct experience, only, like Harry, through communicating with the diary (and actually, we don't know how much Diary!Tom revealed to him). But you know, if I were Lucius, I don't think I'd be confiding things like this in Draco, either. He be sure to go blabbing out of pride, or interfering and getting himself into real danger. Eloise [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Thu Aug 15 10:38:49 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 10:38:49 -0000 Subject: A question about Unforgivables (specifically Imperius). In-Reply-To: <004201c243e3$e924dea0$6401a8c0@dedanaan> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42670 Karen wrote: > Hi everyone, > > I was wondering about the Unforgivables and how to end the effects. Can you use finite incantatem? Does the finite incantatem spell have to be performed by the person who cast the spell in the first place? In the fourth book, Crouch Jr. broke the Imperius spell himself. Was the spell recast constantly to keep him under it, or is the duration as long as the caster decides? > > Karen Notice that your question is triple, in fact, since there are three unforgivables and they act in very different manner. There is no way to end the effects of Avada Kedavra. If it hits you, you're dead. In the case of cruciatus, the caster has to keep pointing his wand towards the recipient (objective ) of the spell, or at least keep concentrated in the business. In this case, the only way for it to finish is for the cater to stop it himself, or for another person to break his concentration. Finally, the Imperious is the most complicated, since it has a lingering effect that doesn't need a permanent following of the caster. Once it's cast, the recipient in under the control of the caster, basically for ever. The only way to finish it is by having the caster liberate him or by the death of the caster. I'd discount that the "finite incantatem" works, although it's possible (and it wasn't used as a matter of fact during the Reign of Terror on everyone because they didn't realise the dangers of Imperius, but is a flimsy excuse. Until someone comes with a better one, as I've said, I'd discount the finitie incantatem as a counter-curse for Imperius). I've said in the previous paragraph that the Imperius is meant to last eternally. This is not exactly true, however, as we already know that powerful wizards or withches can throw it off with concentration. However, note that it takes a while if you're not *very* poweful. Barty Jr. took some 8 years, or so. Barty Sr. took almost a year. Moody, supposedly a very powerful auror, didn't manage to shake it off. The fact thaat Harry can throw it off so quickly is a proof of his increadiuble mental powers and will, and the fact that he practiced with Crouch!Moody. Finally, canon indicates that even someone that throws off the Imperius can still subject to it. This means that if the caster gives you a direct order, you'd probably fall into it again. We know this from GoF when Crouch Jr. is telling his story, and says: "I had started to fught against my father's Imperius curse. There were moments in which I liberated almost completely." (Sp. ed. GoF, ch. 35, liberal translation). Other canon points to the fact that you need to be strong to fight it off, which explains why Moody couldn't liberate, since he was nearly dead from the privations he had been suffering. Hope that helps, Grey Wolf From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Thu Aug 15 10:54:16 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 10:54:16 -0000 Subject: Fred and George: should we worry? (Was: next prank) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42671 jenny from ravenclaw wrote: > Hmmm, maybe they are. If I look at their "pranks" from another > perspective, they could make the twins a force not to be reckoned > with. Turning Ron's stuffed animal into a spider (CoS), changing and > hiding Percy's Prefect badge (PoA) and making snacks that turn people > into canaries (GoF) may not be so funny if they happened to you. Ah, > and in FBWTF, they obviously destroyed a Puffskein because, as Ron > writes to Harry "they used it for bludger practice". At some point > they also feed fireworks to a salamander. While I have to admit > their pranks are quite funny, what they did to the animals was not. > > --jenny from ravenclaw, who would not like to be on the receiving end > of one of Fred and George's pranks, and might not even laugh if I saw > one in action, but I sure love reading them! > ***************************** Just a brief commentary: people *do* enjoy being turned into a canary by eating a cookie. I can't remember exactly when that happens in the books but I'm sure Harry makes an off-hand comment about all the Gryffyndors in the common room eating the cookies and shedding yellow feathers all over the place, so not all his jokes are cruel on the recipient. I think I'd enjoy turniong into a bird for a while. And I think that turning Percy's badge and cursing Draco was totally justified. I'd admit that the sweets they fed Dudley are a trifle dangerous, but they were with their father, who culd counter-curse it. Hope that helps, Grey Wolf, who enjoys reading about those pranks too From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Thu Aug 15 11:22:57 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 11:22:57 -0000 Subject: Molly and Arthur's past (Was Re: Latin-Arabella Figg) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42672 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "corinthum" wrote: > I base this assumption on a few small events. As always, I don't > have the book with me, so forgive any mis-paraphrasing. First of > all, Molly's reaction to Sirius. When he appears, she doesn't react > like one horrified at seeing a traitor, an old friend/coworker who > turned against her. She is simply horrified at coming face to face > with someone she believes is a murderer. And she calls him by his > full name, Sirius Black. If she knew him, I think she would have > simply called him Sirius. After all, do you ever address those you > know by their full names? I know I don't. But I do refer to public > figures in this way. It's how they are usually referred on the news > and in newspapaers, and therefore the full name sticks in my mind. > Since Dumbledore asked Sirius to summon the old crowd, it seems that > the members of this crowd knew each other. I disagree with your first explanation: I use full name *only* when speaking to people that I know, but dislike (as a way of formally keeping the distances). For example, a few of the boys I went to school with take drugs regularly, and I've seen them totally drugged. The few times I've spoken to them since then I've used their "full" name (abreviated to name and first surname), in a not-very-tactful way of expressing my dislike for their company. When speaking of famous people I know just from the papers, I normally use their surname(s) *only* (i.e. not their names). Whether I use the first, second or other surnames depends exclusively on which one is used by the papers and TV, really. Molly's reaction has always stricken me as the reaction of someone who cannot believe how far has fallen a person she used to like. And I simply cannot buy that Molly and Arthur aren't part of the old gang: Dumbledore wouldn't have revealed that much information if he wasn't absolutely sure that he could count with them, and the way I see it, the question is a formality and keeping with the good maners, not a test of loyalty. Hope that helps, Grey Wolf From lupinesque at yahoo.com Thu Aug 15 11:34:44 2002 From: lupinesque at yahoo.com (lupinesque) Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 11:34:44 -0000 Subject: Occam's Razor: WAS A Germanicist Revolts WAS Re: Latin in Harry Potter In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42673 > ~Porphyria, who is still smarting from her disappointment in > discovering that the Latin "severus" is not related to the English > verb "to sever" Aw . . . *pats Porphyria* Let me comfort you. I'm with Haggridd-- etymology is fascinating, and clearly important to JKR, but a word can be significant in other ways than its actual etymology. "Avada Kedavra" sounds like "abracadabra" and "cadaver," both of which add to its meaning regardless of JKR's etymological reasons; it also just sounds dark and ominous ("Waddiwasi" just would not work as an Unforgivable Curse, unless people died of giggling). "Sirius" sounds like "serious," which is no less appropriate for the fact that the former word is Greek in origin, the latter Latin. Likewise, "Severus" puts the English-speaking reader in mind of "sever" as well as "severe." So you just go on enjoying the "sever" in Severus. Amy Z who would like to believe that Potter is a tribute to potters, but, failing that, will enjoy having potterhood in common with Harry anyway From tsnell at brandeis.edu Thu Aug 15 05:56:04 2002 From: tsnell at brandeis.edu (Tina Snell) Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 22:56:04 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Voldemort murders in GoF References: Message-ID: <008a01c24420$eb850200$037ba8c0@sd.cox.net> No: HPFGUIDX 42674 Dowen331 continued: > In the first chapter of GoF, Voldemort clearly says, "one more > death and our path to Harry Potter is clear." > What death is he referring to? --Perhaps he is referring to Cedric Diggory? -Tina [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From meboriqua at aol.com Thu Aug 15 13:17:40 2002 From: meboriqua at aol.com (jenny_ravenclaw) Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 13:17:40 -0000 Subject: Fred and George: should we worry? (Was: next prank) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42675 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "grey_wolf_c" wrote: > Just a brief commentary: people *do* enjoy being turned into a canary by eating a cookie. I can't remember exactly when that happens in the books but I'm sure Harry makes an off-hand comment about all the Gryffyndors in the common room eating the cookies and shedding yellow feathers all over the place, so not all his jokes are cruel on the recipient. I think I'd enjoy turniong into a bird for a while. And I think that turning Percy's badge and cursing Draco was totally justified. I'd admit that the sweets they fed Dudley are a trifle dangerous, but they were with their father, who culd counter-curse it.> I don't recall the book specifically stating that students were purposely eating Canary Creams just so they could turn into canaries. Doesn't Harry worry about eating any kind of candy for a while for fear of what he might temporarily become? As far as Percy and Draco "deserving" to be the targets of Fred and George's wands, why? Percy is no worse for having his badge changed, but Draco is actually knocked unconscious and shows no signs of coming to as Fred and George step on him as they leave the train. Isn't that like saying someone deserves to be punched because of something they said? As satisfied I was when Draco and Co. were hexed, and as much as I like actually seeing Fred and George seriously angry, there is also a part of me that was uncomfortable with what they did. I can't imagine walking *on* someone who is out cold - can you? --jenny from ravenclaw ************************ From xp39c at yahoo.com Thu Aug 15 13:54:29 2002 From: xp39c at yahoo.com (xp39c) Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 13:54:29 -0000 Subject: Molly and Arthur's past (Was Re: Latin-Arabella Figg) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42676 corinthum wrote: > > I base this assumption on a few small events. As always, I don't > > have the book with me, so forgive any mis-paraphrasing. First of > > all, Molly's reaction to Sirius. When he appears, she doesn't react > > like one horrified at seeing a traitor, an old friend/coworker who > > turned against her. She is simply horrified at coming face to face > > with someone she believes is a murderer. And she calls him by his > > full name, Sirius Black. If she knew him, I think she would have > > simply called him Sirius. After all, do you ever address those you > > know by their full names? I know I don't. But I do refer to public > > figures in this way. It's how they are usually referred on the news > > and in newspapaers, and therefore the full name sticks in my mind. > > Since Dumbledore asked Sirius to summon the old crowd, it seems that > > the members of this crowd knew each other. to which Grey Wolf replied: > I disagree with your first explanation: I use full name *only* when > speaking to people that I know, but dislike (as a way of formally > keeping the distances). For example, a few of the boys I went to school > with take drugs regularly, and I've seen them totally drugged. The few > times I've spoken to them since then I've used their "full" name > (abreviated to name and first surname), in a not-very-tactful way of > expressing my dislike for their company. When speaking of famous people > I know just from the papers, I normally use their surname(s) *only* > (i.e. not their names). Whether I use the first, second or other > surnames depends exclusively on which one is used by the papers and TV, > really. > > Molly's reaction has always stricken me as the reaction of someone who > cannot believe how far has fallen a person she used to like. And I > simply cannot buy that Molly and Arthur aren't part of the old gang: > Dumbledore wouldn't have revealed that much information if he wasn't > absolutely sure that he could count with them, and the way I see it, > the question is a formality and keeping with the good maners, not a > test of loyalty. I, too, refer to famous people by their last name when I'm talking about them, but if I see a celebrity in person and were to point him out to people next to me, I would use their full name. Mrs. Weasley's reaction seem to me exactly like the reaction of someone who just saw a criminal, and not the reaction of someone who just saw a traitor. GoF Ch. 36: "Mrs. Weasley screamed and leapt back from the bed. 'Sirius Black!' she shrieked, pointing at him." Her reaction was that of someone who was scared, not someone who was surprised and disgusted, as it would be if she knew him personally. Also, if she and Arthur were part of the "old crowd", Dumbledore would probably have told them that Sirius was innocent, considering that one of their sons already knows. --Hei Lun From speedygonzo242 at hotmail.com Thu Aug 15 15:29:58 2002 From: speedygonzo242 at hotmail.com (frankielee242) Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 15:29:58 -0000 Subject: Fred and George: should we worry? (Was: next prank) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42677 jenny from ravenclaw wrote: > I don't recall the book specifically stating that students were > purposely eating Canary Creams just so they could turn into canaries. > Doesn't Harry worry about eating any kind of candy for a while for > fear of what he might temporarily become? Weeeeellll.... People weren't purposefully eating the Canary Creams, they were purposefully buying them from Fred and George to slip into other people's food. I don't think Billywig stings were an ingredient... (FBWFT). I think the idea of eating something and suddenly turning into a canary is hysterical!! It's temporary, it doesn't hurt and it doesn't humiliate. No one loses social credibility for turning into a canary, nothing personal about them is trotted out into the light of day and no one loses any friends over it. The fake wands and the fake broomstick idea that Zeff8 had are extremely funny for the same reasons. The ton-tongue toffee has a gross-out factor of 10, but as long as somebody else has a wand and can speak clearly for laughing, it's reversible and okay. Like the canary creams, it's bound to wear off eventually. Anyway, Dudley deserved it, Petunia deserved it and so did Uncle Vinnie. Maybe I just have a broad sense of humor... =) HOWEVER, take a scenario like when Moody turned Malfoy into a ferret and bounced him across the hall. Although temporary, it hurt and was intended to be humiliating. If Fred and George pulled pranks like that, I would worry about their mental health. Coming from a large, Weasley-sized family (I'm the oldest), Fred and George seem to me like two perfectly normal guys. Stand-up routines, practical jokes and brawls are standard fare in large households, and since Forge and Gred are still in school, they're not yet mature enough to always stay on the funny side of the fine schadenfreude line. They're dealing with the pressure to live up to their older brothers' success a bit heavy-handed, though. They've obviously distinguished themselves from the other boys to Molly and Arthur by deliberately not choosing intellectual or political futures. It's not entirely in a good way, but as middle children, at least they are getting attention... > > As far as Percy and Draco "deserving" to be the targets of Fred and > George's wands, why? Percy is no worse for having his badge changed, > but Draco is actually knocked unconscious and shows no signs of coming > to as Fred and George step on him as they leave the train. Isn't that > like saying someone deserves to be punched because of something they > said? As satisfied I was when Draco and Co. were hexed, and as much > as I like actually seeing Fred and George seriously angry, there is > also a part of me that was uncomfortable with what they did. I can't > imagine walking *on* someone who is out cold - can you? I would walk *on* someone who gloated over the murder of my friend. I would probably do a lot worse than just step on them once they were down. Then again, here's my perspective-- I grew up in Detroit, Michgan. Not all of my friends survived to graduate high school. Personally, I think they all showed admirable restraint; Ron, Harry and Hermione included. Here's a little something I noticed about that train ride-- NO ONE came to the assistance of the unconscious Malfoy, Crabbe and Goyle. They were bundled out of the compartment and into the middle of the corridor! It's a long train ride! People have to step over them to get past and yet no one has helped them. That bothers me. Yes, I know I just said I would step on them. Frankie, who would probably have been in Hufflepuff From lilac_bearry at yahoo.com Thu Aug 15 15:34:49 2002 From: lilac_bearry at yahoo.com (Lilac) Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 08:34:49 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Imperious/Twin's Next Prank Message-ID: <20020815153449.71484.qmail@web40308.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 42678 From: Karen McVicker Subject: A question about Unforgivables (specifically Imperius): "Hi everyone, I was wondering about the Unforgivables and how to end the effects. Can you use finite incantatem? Does the finite incantatem spell have to be performed by the person who cast the spell in the first place? In the fourth book, Crouch Jr. broke the Imperius spell himself. Was the spell recast constantly to keep him under it, or is the duration as long as the caster decides? Karen" IMO, I don't think you have to use F.I. to end a spell such as the Imperius. Harry can throw off the Imperius after much practice (and knee banging) by himself without saying "Finite Incantantem". Crouch Jr. was impressed with this (it's good to know your enemy's strengths) because we later find out that Jr. fought off "Imperio" as well from his father. Crouch Sr. also fought the Imperius to at least get as far as the Forbidden Forest, but we didn't hear him say "Finite Incantantem" before painfully trying to talk with his right mind to Harry. Crouch Jr. and Sr. had to fight hard to throw off the curse; Harry could do it after a few practice sessions. With "Imperio", it's more like "mind over matter" to resist the temptation to give-in to the wonderful sense of nothingness. Hmm...one thought just now...I wonder if 'Imperio" is kind of like taking mind-altering drugs? I guess Harry can "Just Say No"! ************************* From: "zeff8" Subject: Fred and George's next prank "Was thinking about Fred and George today at work. They like to create pratical jokes, like the ton toung Toffie, and the Canary Creme puffs. How about this in movie/book 5 or 6: Scene: Madam Hootch's flying lesson for the first years. We see Fred and George sticking their heads out from behind a wall in the back ground as Madam Hootch tells the students the famous words,"step up to your broom sticks and say UP, then mount your broom stick" A new first year Gryiffinore student named "Floyd" (or whatever name) says "UP" and his broom comes up to his hand,.. he mounts the stick, and "POOF", it turns into one of them old "horsie head" sticks kids used to ride back in the early part of the 1900's. Everyone ends up laughing.. First Fake wands, now fake broom sticks.. what will Fred and George come up with next?" Ah, those rambunctious twins! I look forward to their pranks as well. However, this post reminded me of a nagging fear I've been having for some time...that either Fred or George will die in book 5. They are both fans from the beginning (in fact, they are the *first* ones to discover that he is The Harry Potter in book 1). But the fact that there are two of them and that they are so much alike, plus there is that Weasley family clock that says "mortal peril", tells me it might be one of them. If it is, maybe JKR's reasoning is that because they are twins, this main-character death might be a little more tolerable because the dead twin's legacy will live on in the living twin. Of course, I hope I am wrong. The rest of the series woudn't have very much comic relief. Even if it's not one of the twins, it's probably going to be a Weasley. Why else would JKR have told us about that clock? Lilac ("No, please, not a Weasley...not a Weasley...I'll do anything, please...have mercy, JKR...") ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~ "Tut, tut --- hardly any of you remembered that my favorite color is *lilac*. I say so in Year with the Yeti." --Gilderoy Lockhart, COS --------------------------------- Do You Yahoo!? HotJobs, a Yahoo! service - Search Thousands of New Jobs [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bdmorrp at budget.state.ny.us Thu Aug 15 15:04:40 2002 From: bdmorrp at budget.state.ny.us (erisedstraeh2002) Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 15:04:40 -0000 Subject: One Remaining GoF Reference to James Emerging First (WAS: Alternate printings) In-Reply-To: <20020813114311.34151.qmail@web11608.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42679 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Stan Kosmoski wrote: > I have been sharing some of the discussions in the > group with HP fans at work, and got into a conflict > with the order of spells that emerged from Voldemort's > wand in GOF. It seems one of my friends has a copy of > GOF that has Harry's mother emerging first and his > father following her. I have seen the book, and the > page number is the same but the text replaces all > "father" and male pronouns with "mother" and female. > The roles are completely reversed, and it is not just > a one word mistake. Has anyone else seen this in their > copies? This is a US hardcover edition. Now me: I'm glad this came up, because I wanted to check with the group on this - I understand from the VFAQ and the salon.com articles that the wand order sequence on GoF pages 665-667 (Scholastic hardcover edition) was corrected in later versions; however, I'm trying to determine why this wasn't corrected on p. 696. On p. 696, when Harry is explaining the events which transpired in the graveyard to Dumbledore and Sirius, Harry gets choked up when he gets to the part about the "reverse echoes" which emerge from Voldemort's wand. My version of the book (which I just bought this summer - I'm a late- blooming HP fan) says Harry "could see Cedric emerging, see the old man, Bertha Jorkins...his *father*...his *mother*..." (my emphases). Elsewhere in my (presumably corrected) version of the book, Lily is consistently described as emerging before James (during the actual priori incantatem sequence on pages 665-667; when Harry finds his voice and tells Dumbledore and Sirius "how the shadow of Harry's *father* had told him what to do" on p. 698; and, when in the hospital wing, Harry recalls "his mother's face, his father's voice" on p. 714). I wondered whether anyone has a version that has *mother* before *father* on p. 696? Also, did the original (uncorrected) US and UK editions say that the shadow of Harry's *mother* told him what to do (on p. 698)? Thanks! Phyllis From bdmorrp at budget.state.ny.us Thu Aug 15 15:20:08 2002 From: bdmorrp at budget.state.ny.us (erisedstraeh2002) Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 15:20:08 -0000 Subject: Does Polyjuice Work with a Dead Person's Hair? (WAS: Voldemort murders in GoF) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42680 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "ats_fhc3" wrote: > Which brings me to ask this question: If someone is dead, can you > still use their hair to make Polyjuice Potion, and look like them? Now me: I agree with your theory that the real Moody was the murder Voldemort was referring to that didn't wind up materializing. I think Crouch Jr.'s orders were to kill the real Moody, but he decided instead to keep him alive (to help him with his impersonation). Since Voldemort's plan was to have Crouch Jr. take polyjuice potion for an entire school year, this suggests that you *can* use a dead person's hair to make Polyjuice Potion. This makes sense to me since our hair isn't alive, it's dead (same goes for Crabbe's fingernail clips that Ron said he wouldn't drink in CoS!). Which leads *me* to yet another question - how is it that Crouch Jr. was able to get away with defying Voldemort's orders? Cheers, Phyllis From pacific_k at hotmail.com Thu Aug 15 15:41:18 2002 From: pacific_k at hotmail.com (pacificlippert) Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 15:41:18 -0000 Subject: Fred and George: should we worry? (Was: next prank) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42681 jenny_ravenclaw wrote: > As far as Percy and Draco "deserving" to be the targets of Fred and > George's wands, why? Percy is no worse for having his badge changed, > but Draco is actually knocked unconscious and shows no signs of coming > to as Fred and George step on him as they leave the train. Isn't that > like saying someone deserves to be punched because of something they > said? As satisfied I was when Draco and Co. were hexed, and as much > as I like actually seeing Fred and George seriously angry, there is > also a part of me that was uncomfortable with what they did. I can't > imagine walking *on* someone who is out cold - can you? Well, cursing Draco and his henchmen wasn't exactly a prank, however, I didn't have any problem with it, and actually thought they got off pretty lightly with only being stepped on. IMO, if you go around insulting, harassing, and threatening people, you're asking for what you get. Karie From beccablue42 at hotmail.com Thu Aug 15 13:37:12 2002 From: beccablue42 at hotmail.com (beccablue42) Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 13:37:12 -0000 Subject: Fred and George: should we worry? (Was: next prank) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42682 On the subject of Fred & George's pranks: --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "jenny_ravenclaw" wrote: > As satisfied I was when Draco and Co. were hexed, and as much > as I like actually seeing Fred and George seriously angry, there is > also a part of me that was uncomfortable with what they did. I can't > imagine walking *on* someone who is out cold - can you? I can. Thinking back to when I was seventeen like the twins (which is not *that* long ago), I tried to punch a big football-type guy (oh, that's American football, by the way. It clarifies the severity of my undertaking!) because he made a very rude pro-Nazi comment to one of my Jewish friends. There are some things that drive people- especially hormone-ridden teenage people- into righteous rage, and picking on the recently deceased is one of those things. Even forgetting for a moment that we are talking about *Malfoy*, who any of Harry's supporters would want to step on anyway, we are talking about someone who just bragged/joked/made light of (the jury's still out on how exactly he intended his "Diggory was first" statement) the tragic death of a classmate. That's enough to send any emotional teen into fits of rage, give them motivation to level some nasty hexes, and take advantage of the opportunity to (in a very unchivalrous manner) kick- or step on- a man while he's down. I'll admit it, pacifist that I am: I'd relish the chance to step on the school bully who just dishonored a fallen comrade. Becca who still agrees that she'd rather not be the one stepped upon From naama2486 at yahoo.com Thu Aug 15 13:26:25 2002 From: naama2486 at yahoo.com (naama2486) Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 13:26:25 -0000 Subject: Voldemort murders in GoF In-Reply-To: <008a01c24420$eb850200$037ba8c0@sd.cox.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42683 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Tina Snell" wrote: > Dowen331 continued: > > In the first chapter of GoF, Voldemort clearly says, "one more > > death and our path to Harry Potter is clear." > > What death is he referring to? > > > --Perhaps he is referring to Cedric Diggory? > > -Tina Well, first of all, it wasn't "one more death" but "one more curse". Secondly, if I remember correctly, that is a quote from Harry's dream, meaning in the summer before his forth year. Wormtail had just brought Voldemort from Albania, where LV had murdered Bertha Jorkins, to his father's house. There Voldemort plans the attack on Crouch Sr., in order to free his faithful servant and eventually get at Harry. Hence, the "one more curse" is the curse on Crouch Sr. (not necessarily a murder, btw). Hope it helps! Naama From naama2486 at yahoo.com Thu Aug 15 13:02:47 2002 From: naama2486 at yahoo.com (naama2486) Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 13:02:47 -0000 Subject: Prof. Trelawney deserves credit! Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42684 I've been wondering for a while now about Trelawney. All through PoA she keeps seeing a Grim, in Harry's teacup, orb etc. right? Wrong! I don't think I'm the first that figured out that she had actually saw Sirius as an animagus, but mistakened him for a Grim. So she saw the sign, but read it wrong. That's more than most can do. And think, she was actually the first to find out about him! (she just wasn't aware of it...) Morover, there are those two *true* predictions: the one about the return of LV and the one Dumbledore talks about (something like "that brings her total of true predictions to two", I don't remember the exact quote). I'd say that's a great deal for a fraud. I mean, if such predictions could come to anyone, how come Trelawney had them *twice*? There must be something about her after all, doesn't it? So true, she's insanedly fixed on seeing peoples' death, and true, I wouldn't let her look at my crystal ball from a mile, but still, she deserves *some* credit. Just a thought... Naama From gandharvika at hotmail.com Thu Aug 15 16:16:23 2002 From: gandharvika at hotmail.com (Gail Bohacek) Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 16:16:23 +0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Penseive Ponderings Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42685 Not long ago I was flipping through GoF to my favorite "scenes", and when I got to the chapter where Harry slips into Dumbledore's penseive, I got to thinking about the mechanics of the thing. (I'm at work, so forgive me for not giving direct quotes from canon) So, from what I understand, the penseive is a receptacle which holds one's thoughts, having been drawn from one's mind by a wand...then one may view his/her thoughts at leisure. But we know how fickle one's memory can be. To give an example from the books: Okay, picture this...Sirius Black is facing Peter Pettigrew on a crowded Muggle-filled street. Peter says, "James...Lily...How could you?" and blasts the street behind him, killing several people, and slips out of sight into the sewer as a rat. Now, the only person who really "saw" and understood what went on was Sirius, since he could describe the scene (from memory) to Lupis and the others in the Shrieking Shack. But there where witnesses...those who said that it was Sirius who pointed the wand, blew Peter into little bits, etc. What if we where to penseive their minds? I don't think that we would necessarily see the "truth"...because the penseive (as I understand it) is not like a video recorder which captures the action, live, as it happens...but like I mentioned before, shows our memories (which in the case of the witnesses, is flawed). To go further...could someone produce a false memory in the penseive? What if somebody with a very keen imagination (or somebody having hallucinations perhaps?) can produce in his/her mind a situation that is distorted from the truth or just plain fantasy? Could one draw this false memory from one's mind and view it in the penseive just as one could a real memory? Just thinking. -Gail B. who wants a penseive for her birthday. _________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com From marc.nguyen at greenheck.com Thu Aug 15 16:38:07 2002 From: marc.nguyen at greenheck.com (Nguyen, Marc) Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 11:38:07 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Fred and George: should we worry? /Missing 2 4hrs Message-ID: <61E2AF8C78F2D211B0B70008C7F921D50616A972@orion2.greenops.com> No: HPFGUIDX 42686 jenny from ravenclaw writes: <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< I don't recall the book specifically stating that students were purposely eating Canary Creams just so they could turn into canaries. Doesn't Harry worry about eating any kind of candy for a while for fear of what he might temporarily become? As far as Percy and Draco "deserving" to be the targets of Fred and George's wands, why? Percy is no worse for having his badge changed, but Draco is actually knocked unconscious and shows no signs of coming to as Fred and George step on him as they leave the train. Isn't that like saying someone deserves to be punched because of something they said? As satisfied I was when Draco and Co. were hexed, and as much as I like actually seeing Fred and George seriously angry, there is also a part of me that was uncomfortable with what they did. I can't imagine walking *on* someone who is out cold - can you? --jenny from ravenclaw ************************ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> my reply: IMHO, the twins jokes are borderline mean/hilarious. I don't think that they would do anything purposely *mean* to someone without cause. The jokes do not really cause anyone harm, and to show that they are real jokesters, they can even laugh at themselves!(the aging line when their attempt blows one or both of them up in Gof). As for the hexes on Draco and Co., that I feel was deserved. The students just had Diggory die a week ago, and Draco was making light of it and I *think* putting him down when all *5* kids hexed them at once. It wasn't the twins by themselves, but everyone there felt anger and rightly so. Draco just pushes and pushes until poeple push back, and that they did. As for walking over them, I don't know if it was one purpose, or if there were no room to get out of the compartment, but I do't hold that against them either. I think the trio also steps on them too(I might be wrong though). the act I think was a sign of dis-respect, which I think fits Draco and Co. about the 24 missing hrs: I am starting to reread SS, and when Harry goes to the Leaky Couldron for the first time, Tom says something to the effect of: "Welcome back Harry Potter, welcome back" or "Good to see you again". I guess his parents *could* have taken him by there when they were alive, but it's very curious that Tom knows and has seen Harry at his pub before. Marc From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Thu Aug 15 16:55:23 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 16:55:23 -0000 Subject: Fred and George: should we worry? (Was: next prank) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42687 > I Wrote: > > Just a brief commentary: people *do* enjoy being turned into a > canary by eating a cookie. I can't remember exactly when that happens > in the books but I'm sure Harry makes an off-hand comment about all > the Gryffyndors in the common room eating the cookies and shedding > yellow feathers all over the place, so not all his jokes are cruel on > the recipient. I think I'd enjoy turniong into a bird for a while. > And I think that turning Percy's badge and cursing Draco was totally > justified. I'd admit that the sweets they fed Dudley are a trifle > dangerous, but they were with their father, who culd counter-curse > it.> Jenny answered: > I don't recall the book specifically stating that students were > purposely eating Canary Creams just so they could turn into canaries. > Doesn't Harry worry about eating any kind of candy for a while for > fear of what he might temporarily become? To quote (Sp. Ed. GoF, ch. 21, Liberal translation): "One minute after [Neville had eaten the Canary Cream] Neville's feathers started to shed, and, once all of them had fallen, his shape became the same as always. Even he laughed" And if this is not enough, a little later (ch. 23): "Fred and George had had a big success with their Canary Creams, and during the first two days of christmas the people were leaving feathers all over the place" If people had not enjoyed turning into canaries, the joke wouldn't have lasted two days: in about two hours, everyone would've stoped eating the creams. Note that in the first occasion even Neville laughed, and he's not particularly known for "laughing along" in hope that it looks as if he isn't embarrased -more like running away from the laughter. The entire feeling I've got out of JKR's writing of those passages is that the people *enjoy* being turned into a canary for a minute and shed feathers all over the place, before turning back into their old selves. There's nothing bad with it: you aren't hurt, and you're not made fun of because of it. It looks like great fun and, as I said, I think I'd enjoy eating one. > As far as Percy and Draco "deserving" to be the targets of Fred and > George's wands, why? Percy is no worse for having his badge changed, > but Draco is actually knocked unconscious and shows no signs of > coming to as Fred and George step on him as they leave the train. > Isn't that like saying someone deserves to be punched because of > something they said? As satisfied I was when Draco and Co. were > hexed, and as much as I like actually seeing Fred and George > seriously angry, there is also a part of me that was uncomfortable > with what they did. I can't imagine walking *on* someone who is out > cold - can you? > > --jenny from ravenclaw ************************ The fact is that Draco indeed deserved to be hit by his words. If you insult someone to the face, you can expect a sharp retort, but decency says that events don't escalate. However, insulting the memory of a dead person DOES call for somthing more than a sharp retort. If someone had insulted any of my dear ones a few days after his or her passing, they would've tasted my fist. AND I wouldn't feel pity for him, or remorse in using him as a doormat afterwards. If that makes me a bad person, so be it. Hopefully, I'll never have to pass through this in real life. Hope that helps, Grey Wolf, who does act like a wolf sometimes: if you anger him, expect to be bitten. From gandharvika at hotmail.com Thu Aug 15 16:39:18 2002 From: gandharvika at hotmail.com (Gail Bohacek) Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 16:39:18 +0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Prof. Trelawney deserves credit! Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42688 Naama Writes: >Moreover, there are those two *true* predictions: the one about the >return of LV and the one Dumbledore talks about (something like "that >brings her total of true predictions to two", I don't remember the >exact quote). I'd say that's a great deal for a fraud. I mean, if >such predictions could come to anyone, how come Trelawney had them >*twice*? There must be something about her after all, doesn't it? >So true, she's insanely fixed on seeing peoples' death, and true, I >wouldn't let her look at my crystal ball from a mile, but still, she >deserves *some* credit. I Respond: She also predicts things like Neville breaking her teacups (she keeps to herself in her room...how could she have known that Neville is a klutz?) and Parvati's rabbit dying....don't little predictions count, too? Even in the Muggle-world we have "hard sciences" (like mathematics) and "soft sciences" (like psychology). The difference is, basically, 1 + 1 always equals 2 (until you get into weird math which I don't even want to get into) while there are hundreds of theories of what makes the human mind tick. Divisions would be classified as "soft", while say, Potions as "hard" (take the cauldron off the fire a little too soon, your potion goes flat). Trelawney is very theatrical, but she must have some talent, or else why would she be working at Hogwarts? (or, for that matter, why would there be a Divisions class at all?) I agree, she deserves some credit, but her behavior would get on my nerves. _________________________________________________________________ Join the worlds largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Thu Aug 15 17:15:42 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 17:15:42 -0000 Subject: Prof. Trelawney deserves credit! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42689 Gail Bohacek wrote: > She also predicts things like Neville breaking her teacups (she keeps > to herself in her room...how could she have known that Neville is a > klutz?) and Parvati's rabbit dying....don't little predictions count, > too? There is, however, a second viewpoint ot both of these things. For the first (Neville's teacup), would Neville have broken the teacup if Trelawny hadn't said anything? By putting a scared boy under even more preasure, you can expect an accident to happen, and the sort of accident that could happen in that case was clear. In the second situation (Parvati's rabbit), as Hermione pointed out, the prediction was incorrect: Even if Parvati had, due to Trelawny's predictions, feared something something bad happening that day, I don't think she feared "receiving a letter about the death of her rabbit three days before". > Trelawney is very theatrical, but she must have some talent, or else > why would she be working at Hogwarts? (or, for that matter, why would > there be a Divisions class at all?) I agree, she deserves some > credit, but her behavior would get on my nerves. She has a job because there are probably very few real seers around, and since Trelawny is almost being payed for having real, trance- induced predictions (rememher Dumbledore's comment about giving her a pay rise?), it seems logical to hire her. You don't really need an expert in the matter to give class, just someone who can read the theory. An expert is preferable, but sometimes you just don't have one handy. Oh, and she teaches "Divinations", not "Divisions", I think. Although I'd agree that she would probably be better at those. At least, she could get the answer right more often than twice in a life time. Hope that helps, Grey Wolf From psychic_serpent at yahoo.com Thu Aug 15 18:03:11 2002 From: psychic_serpent at yahoo.com (Barb P) Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 11:03:11 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] How did Dobby know the Chamber was going to be opened? In-Reply-To: <161.124f0974.2a8cb1ad@aol.com> Message-ID: <20020815180311.75746.qmail@web13006.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 42690 eloiseherisson at aol.com wrote: Gretchen: I should check my book for the exact quote, but Draco said to Harry/Ron as Crabbe and Goyle under polyjuice potion that his dad didn't know who opened the Chamber. One would presume that Dobby knew from Malfoy's, but if they didn't know, how did he find out? Eloise: He said (IIRC) that the chamber being last opened 50 years ago, it was before his father's time, so he didn't know about it. How very convenient! Lucius has been a little economical with the truth with his son, I feel! He *does* know about the last time (IMO), but not from direct experience, only, like Harry, through communicating with the diary (and actually, we don't know how much Diary!Tom revealed to him). But you know, if I were Lucius, I don't think I'd be confiding things like this in Draco, either. He be sure to go blabbing out of pride, or interfering and getting himself into real danger. I think you make some great points, Eloise. First, I think that Lucius lies to Draco quite a lot, probably to protect him, and partly to protect himself, since you are probably right that Draco isn't bright enough not to brag or interfere. Second, Lucius probably DID communicate with Tom in the diary. It would explain a lot. If Lucius successfully presented himself to Tom as a Slytherin sympathizer, Tom might have trusted him him enough with the truth. And we know what Tom thought of Hagrid. We also know how Tom used Hagrid as a scapegoat. Lucius clearly also sees Hagrid as a handy scapegoat. But I think it's Tom Riddle who gave him the idea. This might serve to explain Malfoy's antagonism toward Hagrid, which seems to predate Draco's hippogriff injury. As early as the first book, Draco Malfoy is disdainful of Hagrid, as though his mind had already been poisoned against him. And just who would be in a position to do that? His dad. Why might he do that? Because HIS mind was already poisoned against Hagrid by Tom Riddle. I believe that Lucius Malfoy thought his actions would lead to the resurrection of Voldemort in the form of Tom Riddle from the diary, given corporeal form by feeding off the life force of the person writing in the diary. Malfoy would then be in a position to serve as Voldemort's right hand. Having failed at this in CoS, I believe he's still interested in this position, and I fully expect to see a power struggle between him and Wormtail in coming books. This instability in Voldemort's inner circle might be an ingredient in his ultimate defeat. --Barb --------------------------------- Do You Yahoo!? HotJobs, a Yahoo! service - Search Thousands of New Jobs [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From gohana_chan02 at lycos.com Thu Aug 15 18:31:28 2002 From: gohana_chan02 at lycos.com (Hana) Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 14:31:28 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Missing 24hrs Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42691 Marc said: about the 24 missing hrs: I am starting to reread SS, and when Harry goes to the Leaky Couldron for the first time, Tom says something to the effect of: "Welcome back Harry Potter, welcome back" or "Good to see you again". I guess his parents *could* have taken him by there when they were alive, but it's very curious that Tom knows and has seen Harry at his pub before. Me: I don't know if anyone mentioned this as I haven't had time to follow the thread, but what if Hagrid stopped with baby Harry for a drink? Hagrid might need one after the stress of the Potters' deaths and London isn't ~that~ far out of the way. (Though I hope he didn't spend 24 hours in the pub with a baby!) --- --Hana __________________________________________________________ Outgrown your current e-mail service? Get a 25MB Inbox, POP3 Access, No Ads and No Taglines with LYCOS MAIL PLUS. http://login.mail.lycos.com/brandPage.shtml?pageId=plus From gideoner4 at yahoo.com Thu Aug 15 18:57:55 2002 From: gideoner4 at yahoo.com (lexan_r) Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 18:57:55 -0000 Subject: One Remaining GoF Reference to James Emerging First (WAS: Alternate printings) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42693 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "erisedstraeh2002" wrote: > > I wondered whether anyone has a version that has *mother* before > *father* on p. 696? Also, did the original (uncorrected) US and UK > editions say that the shadow of Harry's *mother* told him what to do > (on p. 698)? > > Thanks! > Phyllis I have an uncorrected, original copy. Yes, the shadow of Harry's mother told him what to do in my copy, p. 698. *Father* came before *mother* in p. 696, in my copy. Lexan From gideoner4 at yahoo.com Thu Aug 15 19:08:29 2002 From: gideoner4 at yahoo.com (lexan_r) Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 19:08:29 -0000 Subject: Why are there financially poor magical people in the first place? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42694 I'm sorry if I sound rather cluleless, but this has been bothering me for long... Why are there poor wizards/witches? Aren't magic supposed to make their life easier and more convenient? As Ron said in PS/SS, "Are you a witch or not?!" See, magical people can conjur things and transfigure things. Of course, I don't think they are allowed to conjure money and transfigure something to money--I bet the Ministry has a way of detecting counterfeit money. But what about other things? To illustrate: why not transfigure your one's old clothes to stylish expensive ones? And they can conjure things out of midair, right? Like Mrs. Weasley conjuring sauce out of her wand, remember? And it's not just about clothes. It's about everything. They can do endless things with magic for their own convenience! So why are there poor magical folk? Lexan From mrflynn6 at yahoo.com Thu Aug 15 19:10:54 2002 From: mrflynn6 at yahoo.com (mrflynn6) Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 19:10:54 -0000 Subject: One Remaining GoF Reference to James Emerging First (WAS: Alternate printings) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42695 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "erisedstraeh2002" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Stan Kosmoski wrote: > > I have been sharing some of the discussions in the > > group with HP fans at work, and got into a conflict > > with the order of spells that emerged from Voldemort's > > wand in GOF. It seems one of my friends has a copy of > > GOF that has Harry's mother emerging first and his > > father following her. I have seen the book, and the > > page number is the same but the text replaces all > > "father" and male pronouns with "mother" and female. > > The roles are completely reversed, and it is not just > > a one word mistake. Has anyone else seen this in their > > copies? This is a US hardcover edition. > > Now me: > > I'm glad this came up, because I wanted to check with the group on > this - I understand from the VFAQ and the salon.com articles that the > wand order sequence on GoF pages 665-667 (Scholastic hardcover > edition) was corrected in later versions; however, I'm trying to > determine why this wasn't corrected on p. 696. On p. 696, when Harry > is explaining the events which transpired in the graveyard to > Dumbledore and Sirius, Harry gets choked up when he gets to the > part about the "reverse echoes" which emerge from Voldemort's wand. > My version of the book (which I just bought this summer - I'm a late- > blooming HP fan) says Harry "could see Cedric emerging, see the old > man, Bertha Jorkins...his *father*...his *mother*..." (my emphases). > > Elsewhere in my (presumably corrected) version of the book, Lily is > consistently described as emerging before James (during the actual > priori incantatem sequence on pages 665-667; when Harry finds his > voice and tells Dumbledore and Sirius "how the shadow of Harry's > *father* had told him what to do" on p. 698; and, when in the > hospital wing, Harry recalls "his mother's face, his father's voice" > on p. 714). > > I wondered whether anyone has a version that has *mother* before > *father* on p. 696? Also, did the original (uncorrected) US and UK > editions say that the shadow of Harry's *mother* told him what to do > (on p. 698)? > > Thanks! > Phyllis ------------------- I have both a First Edition US hard cover and a new paperback, US edition, and page 698 in both issues is the same, as is the text on page 714, but page 667 had his father coming before his mother in the paperback edition and his mother giving him instructions in the hardcover and his father in the paperback. I wonder if this is deliberate on JKR's part to cause confusion and speculation reguarding the death of James and/or Lily. I feel it is similar to the deliberate "mistake" of the descendent/ancestor controversy. Gretchen From miss_dumblydore at yahoo.com Thu Aug 15 19:12:04 2002 From: miss_dumblydore at yahoo.com (Heather Gauen) Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 12:12:04 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Voldemort murders in GoF In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020815191204.71507.qmail@web20416.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 42696 I'm not completely caught up yet, so forgive me if someone already answered this. :) Naama wrote: > Well, first of all, it wasn't "one more death" but > "one more curse". Me: Hmmm. Do you have a later edition or a translation of a foreign version? I have GoF (American, p. 10) right in front of me, and it clearly says "one more death." Right before that Wormtail says "if I murder-" and Voldemort interrupts with "the Ministry need never know anyone else died." (paraphrasing here, sorry) Then, on page 12, Volemort continues musing, "One more murder..." So what I have is Voldemort *repeatedly* saying that he is going to kill someone else. There are a couple of possibilities here, at least that I see. I don't believe that Cedric was the death he referred to, as his showing up at the graveyard was purely accidental. Barty Crouch Sr. makes sense, except that Voldy says that the Ministry doesn't have to know, and I think someone would notice the death of such an important official. Moody seems the most likely, since no one would know he was dead as long as Crouch Jr. was polyjuiced to look like him. But then there is still the pesky detail that Moody *wasn't murdered*.... Or perhaps another murder was planned all along and wasn't carried out for some reason. ::suddenly realizes that this opens up another spectrum of possibilities:: All right, I'll leave the speculating up to others for now. Heather, who was just taken off moderated new member status, woo-hoo! --- naama2486 wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Tina Snell" > wrote: > > Dowen331 continued: > > > In the first chapter of GoF, Voldemort clearly > says, "one more > > > death and our path to Harry Potter is clear." > > > What death is he referring to? > > > > > > --Perhaps he is referring to Cedric Diggory? > > > > -Tina > > Well, first of all, it wasn't "one more death" but > "one more curse". > > Secondly, if I remember correctly, that is a quote > from Harry's > dream, meaning in the summer before his forth year. > > Wormtail had just brought Voldemort from Albania, > where LV had > murdered Bertha Jorkins, to his father's house. > There Voldemort plans > the attack on Crouch Sr., in order to free his > faithful servant and > eventually get at Harry. > > Hence, the "one more curse" is the curse on Crouch > Sr. (not > necessarily a murder, btw). > > Hope it helps! > > Naama > > > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? HotJobs - Search Thousands of New Jobs http://www.hotjobs.com From marc.nguyen at greenheck.com Thu Aug 15 19:16:53 2002 From: marc.nguyen at greenheck.com (Nguyen, Marc) Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 14:16:53 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Why are there financially poor magical people in the first place?/wands Message-ID: <61E2AF8C78F2D211B0B70008C7F921D50616A975@orion2.greenops.com> No: HPFGUIDX 42697 Lexan wrote: <<<<<<<<<<<<< I'm sorry if I sound rather cluleless, but this has been bothering me for long... Why are there poor wizards/witches? Aren't magic supposed to make their life easier and more convenient? As Ron said in PS/SS, "Are you a witch or not?!" See, magical people can conjur things and transfigure things. Of course, I don't think they are allowed to conjure money and transfigure something to money--I bet the Ministry has a way of detecting counterfeit money. But what about other things? To illustrate: why not transfigure your one's old clothes to stylish expensive ones? And they can conjure things out of midair, right? Like Mrs. Weasley conjuring sauce out of her wand, remember? And it's not just about clothes. It's about everything. They can do endless things with magic for their own convenience! So why are there poor magical folk? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.. My reply: I don't think you can just create things out of thin air...otherwise the weasley family would have new school supplies and robes instead of hand-me-downs, and all Quidditch players would just create the newest broomsticks instead of buying them. Also, with the way Gringotts works, I highly doubt that the metal for the wizard money can be easily recreated. I don't have real proof for this, but it would make sense tha tif magic could create these things, there would be no use in selling them... on a side note of wands: If the wand chooses the witch/wizard, why is Draco's mom picking out his wand for him when Harry meets him for the first time at the robe shop? Marc From ksnidget at aol.com Thu Aug 15 19:23:13 2002 From: ksnidget at aol.com (ksnidget at aol.com) Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 15:23:13 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Why are there financially poor magical people in the first place? Message-ID: <1CFEF034.4988DB45.007B4FA9@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 42698 Lexan writes: >I'm sorry if I sound rather cluleless, but this has been bothering >me for long... We all have our moments >But what about other things? To illustrate: why not transfigure your >one's old clothes to stylish expensive ones? And they can conjure >things out of midair, right? Like Mrs. Weasley conjuring sauce out >of her wand, remember? And it's not just about clothes. It's about >everything. They can do endless things with magic for their own >convenience! So why are there poor magical folk? There are limits to what magic can do. JKR has a set of rules that she uses to decide what can and can't be done. One of the rules (and I think she talks about it in an interview) is that stuff you conjure up from nothing doesn't last. At some point yeah, you make your life more comfortable, but it probably gets embarassing when the Armani suit you are wearing keeps dissappearing every 3 hours or so "Oops could you all please turn your back until I conjure a new suit and put it on. Thanks ever so much...." I do think they can use magic to make life a lot more comfortable than they would being poor and non-magical, but many of the necessities of life, clothing, housing, books, school supplies, are all things that need to be purchased. Ksnidget From ambiradams at hotmail.com Thu Aug 15 19:32:30 2002 From: ambiradams at hotmail.com (Ambir Adams) Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 12:32:30 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Trelawney deserves credit, But so does Ron! Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42699 I actually think Ron is a bit more accurate with his predictions, although he doesn't realize it yet. Most of everything he said to Harry has happened, or did happen. If you want me to find specifics like quotes and page numbers I will. I think Ron really has the gift of sight, not Trelawney. Sure she might have had two correct preditictions but honestly, only two? And she probably comes out for meals, so she very well could know that Neville is a clutz. Ryoko Blue ^_^ _________________________________________________________________ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Thu Aug 15 19:43:38 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 19:43:38 -0000 Subject: Voldemort murders in GoF In-Reply-To: <20020815191204.71507.qmail@web20416.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42700 Heather Gauen wrote: > Naama wrote: > > Well, first of all, it wasn't "one more death" but > > "one more curse". > > Me: > Hmmm. Do you have a later edition or a translation of > a foreign version? I have GoF (American, p. 10) right > in front of me, and it clearly says "one more death." > Right before that Wormtail says "if I murder-" and > Voldemort interrupts with "the Ministry need never > know anyone else died." (paraphrasing here, sorry) > Then, on page 12, Volemort continues musing, "One more > murder..." So what I have is Voldemort *repeatedly* > saying that he is going to kill someone else. OK, I've got a translated edition of GoF, so my copy is as valid as yours in principle (hey, at least in my translated versions all titles are correct ;-p ). In my version there is no future death. Peter says that "And, if we continue, if I throw the curse". Voldemort, in the same line, first speaks of "One less obstacle", which I admit could mean almost *anything*, but then specifies "One more curse" (all quotes are Sp. Ed. GoF ch. 1, Liberal translation). Since I don't think Naama has them in my language, that's two against one by now, although I'll be the first to admit that the only one that really counts is the original, British text. Any brits out there that care give us the original text? Hope that helps, Grey Wolf From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Thu Aug 15 19:51:26 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 19:51:26 -0000 Subject: Wands In-Reply-To: <61E2AF8C78F2D211B0B70008C7F921D50616A975@orion2.greenops.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42701 Marc wrote: > on a side note of wands: > > If the wand chooses the witch/wizard, why is Draco's mom picking out > his wand for him when Harry meets him for the first time at the robe > shop? > > Marc Thanks for finding that little canon! I've always tried to held the theory that Olivander's idea of the "wand choosing the wizard" is just the private theory of a strange old man who has spent his whole life selling wands, but up till now there was nothing in which to base the gut feeling. Now, I've got that to back me up. My theory goes that, although it *is* possible that some wands are better suited to a person than others, it is nowhere as strong as Olivanders thinks it is. This explains why any wand will serve any wizard, even hand-me-downs like Ron gets (that is, until he breaks it). And even if what Olivander thinks is correct (he's the expert, and all that), most of the WW *do not* believe that, but think that any wand will work, and buy according to other principles: how pretty it is, what is good for (as in "good for charms") or, in the case of the Malfoys, probably basing in the cost ("the most expensive one, please. Oh, and throw in a gold box to keep it in so it doesn't loose the shine"). Hope that helps, Grey Wolf, who probably didn't give you the answer you were looking for From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Thu Aug 15 20:02:47 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 20:02:47 -0000 Subject: Trelawney deserves credit, But so does Ron! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42702 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Ambir Adams" wrote: > I actually think Ron is a bit more accurate with his predictions, > although he doesn't realize it yet. Most of everything he said to > Harry has happened, or did happen. If you want me to find specifics > like quotes and page numbers I will. I think Ron really has the gift > of sight, not Trelawney. Sure she might have had two correct > preditictions but honestly, only two? Ah, another convert for HAGRID WANTS BRASS DRAGONS AS PETS, ANSWERS, WANDS CRISS-CROSS or WANTON MORASS OF TOSH. Pity *I* don't buy the idea. Proof? Ron gets predictions right because he scouts almost all the possibilities, after all, and even then, it needs even more clever arguing about how he correctly predicted than to explain how Parvati expected a letter about the death of her rabbit. Any of the defenders of the above-named theories would like to come out and expose -in a nut-shell- their arguments? > And she probably comes out for meals, so she very well could know > that Neville is a clutz. > > Ryoko Blue ^_^ Nope, she doesn't come out to meals: Dumbledore mentions that she's not normally seen at meals when she joins the 12 staying over for the CoS Christmas meal (at least, I think it's CoS. It could be PoA, though). Hope that helps, Grey Wolf From msiscusack at yahoo.com Thu Aug 15 16:29:59 2002 From: msiscusack at yahoo.com (Kristin Cusack) Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 09:29:59 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] How did Dobby know the Chamber was going to be opened? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020815162959.70185.qmail@web13101.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 42703 --- mrflynn6 wrote: > It just occured to me, how did Dobby know the > Chamber was going to be > opened and Harry was going to be in danger if he > returned to Dobby knew because he belongs to the Malfoys...Lucius Malfoy is the one who planted the diary on Ginny Weaskey in Flourish and Blotts fully knowing what would happen. He wanted to get Arthur fired at the ministry so his Muggle Protection Act would never be passed...what better way to ensure Arthur final demise at the Ministry than to have one of his own children be guilty of opening the chamber of secrets and petrifiying and probably (if things had gone as Lucius wanted them) killing students. As Winky tells us in GoF, it is a house elf's job to keep her master's secrets...and sometimes they overhear things as they tend to their house-elfly duties (as Dobby thinks is his reason for overhearing the staged Moody/Magonagall conversation about gilly weed.) He probably overheard Lucius' plotting somewhere around the manor. ~Kristin __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? HotJobs - Search Thousands of New Jobs http://www.hotjobs.com From supermouse35 at yahoo.com Thu Aug 15 17:58:09 2002 From: supermouse35 at yahoo.com (supermouse35) Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 17:58:09 -0000 Subject: Elementary Education for Wizarding Children Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42704 Hello all! I'm new to the list and have been enjoying it immensely. :-) I was wondering if anyone has any theories as to how children in the wizarding world are educated before they attend Hogwarts. Since Hogwarts seems to be the equivalent of the American junior high/high school, you'd think they would have to have some kind of elementary school system in place, as well. But they don't seem to, as Hogwarts appears to beginning of the educational process for all magical children in the UK. The existence of a magical elementary school system would also put children from Muggle families at a distinct disadvantage when they begin Hogwarts as they would not have access to it. So do these kids just sit around until they are 11 and then get only 7 years of formalized education? Gina From fyredriftwood at yahoo.com Thu Aug 15 18:32:44 2002 From: fyredriftwood at yahoo.com (fyredriftwood) Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 18:32:44 -0000 Subject: Does Polyjuice Work with a Dead Person's Hair? (WAS: Voldemort murders in GoF) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42705 Erisedstraeh2002 mentioned something: Since > Voldemort's plan was to have Crouch Jr. take polyjuice potion for an > entire school year, this suggests that you *can* use a dead person's > hair to make Polyjuice Potion. This makes sense to me since our hair > isn't alive, it's dead (same goes for Crabbe's fingernail clips that > Ron said he wouldn't drink in CoS!). > It's really too bad that no one had a piece of hair from Lily or James Potter because it would be really interesting to have maybe Sirius take the potion and come back to Harry dressed as James and just have one conversation with him. He'd then be able to see his dad in a "life-like" version... and Harry could ask James!Sirius all these questions and James!Sirius could answer them Okay, so it's a really bad idea, but still--if I had never met my parents face to face, that would be the closest I'd ever get--and I would take advantage of it =) --Fyre Wood From manic1066 at yahoo.com Thu Aug 15 19:15:44 2002 From: manic1066 at yahoo.com (manic) Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 12:15:44 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: One Remaining GoF Reference to James Emerging First (WAS: Alternate printings) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020815191544.66352.qmail@web10705.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 42706 --- mrflynn6 wrote: > I have both a First Edition US hard cover and a new paperback, US > edition, and page 698 in both issues is the same, as is the text on > page 714, but page 667 had his father coming before his mother in the > > paperback edition and his mother giving him instructions in the > hardcover and his father in the paperback. > > I wonder if this is deliberate on JKR's part to cause confusion and > speculation reguarding the death of James and/or Lily. I feel it is > similar to the deliberate "mistake" of the descendent/ancestor > controversy. I read in an interview not long after the first edition came out that it was an honest mistake. JK got thousands of letters pointing out the mistake and the response was 'whoops, that got by everyone.' If it were a deliberate mistake, than later editions of the book would have remained uncorrected. That later editions are corrected, it stands to reason that it was a mistake and not an attempt of the author to mislead the reader. ===== manic whacking the world a safe place... http://www.livejournal.com/users/manic1066/ __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? HotJobs - Search Thousands of New Jobs http://www.hotjobs.com From fyredriftwood at yahoo.com Thu Aug 15 19:36:38 2002 From: fyredriftwood at yahoo.com (fyredriftwood) Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 19:36:38 -0000 Subject: wands... and draco's in particular In-Reply-To: <61E2AF8C78F2D211B0B70008C7F921D50616A975@orion2.greenops.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42707 Marc brought up a point: If the wand chooses the witch/wizard, why is Draco's mom picking out his > wand for him when Harry meets him for the first time at the robe shop? > Fyre WOod replies with: Perhaps Narcissa was checking them out and once Draco was done in the robe shop, then he'd go up there and get his wand. Narcissa could be checking out prices... or maybe she just went to scout ahead to save a place in line for Draco? On the second thought........ why doesn't Harry see Narcissa when he arrives in Olivanders? Perhaps she wasn't really there at all, and rather she was somewhere else?! --Fyre Wood... who wishes she was the heir of slytherin From jbryson at richmond.infi.net Thu Aug 15 20:39:32 2002 From: jbryson at richmond.infi.net (tex23236) Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 20:39:32 -0000 Subject: wands... and draco's in particular In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42708 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "fyredriftwood" wrote: > Perhaps Narcissa was checking them out and once Draco was done in the > robe shop, then he'd go up there and get his wand. Narcissa could be > checking out prices... or maybe she just went to scout ahead to save > a place in line for Draco? Could it be that, while the wand chooses the wizard, the wand recognizes the wizard's mother, so she could do the spark testing? > > On the second thought........ why doesn't Harry see Narcissa when he > arrives in Olivanders? Perhaps she wasn't really there at all, and > rather she was somewhere else?! Yes, a dark old family like the Malfoys might patronize a wand shop in Nockturn Alley. tex From ra_1013 at yahoo.com Thu Aug 15 20:48:33 2002 From: ra_1013 at yahoo.com (ra_1013) Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 20:48:33 -0000 Subject: Why are there financially poor magical people in the first place? In-Reply-To: <1CFEF034.4988DB45.007B4FA9@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42709 --- ksnidget wrote: > One of the rules (and I think she talks about it in an interview) > is that stuff you conjure up from nothing doesn't last. At some > point yeah, you make your life more comfortable, but it probably > gets embarassing when the Armani suit you are wearing keeps > dissappearing every 3 hours or so "Oops could > you all please turn your back until I conjure a new suit and put > it on. Thanks ever so much...." > > I do think they can use magic to make life a lot more comfortable > than they would being poor and non-magical, but many of the > necessities of life, clothing, housing, books, school supplies, > are all things that need to be purchased. And also, perhaps its a matter of skill or specialization as well. For example, it's theoretically possible for me to make my own clothing, as I have just as much access to cloth, thread, and needles as a seamstress. But I really wouldn't want to be seen in public with any clothes that *I* might make. I'll just buy them, thanks. ;) As we saw with Ron's severing charm to remove the lace from his dress robes in GOF, a poorly-done spell really doesn't look all that great. So wizards without any skill at clothing-making spells would result in as ugly of clothing as I would make with my needle and thread. This would presumably hold true for other areas of specialization, such as wand making, furnishings, and magical components. I still firmly believe, BTW, that there is a school supply of emergency sleeping bags which Dumbledore summoned from storage, not conjured out of nowhere. :) Andrea From eloiseherisson at aol.com Thu Aug 15 20:48:34 2002 From: eloiseherisson at aol.com (eloiseherisson at aol.com) Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 16:48:34 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Voldemort murders in GoF Message-ID: <150.127888f6.2a8d6da2@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 42710 Grey Wolf: > OK, I've got a translated edition of GoF, so my copy is as valid as > yours in principle (hey, at least in my translated versions all titles > are correct ;-p ). In my version there is no future death. Peter says > that "And, if we continue, if I throw the curse". Voldemort, in the > same line, first speaks of "One less obstacle", which I admit could > mean almost *anything*, but then specifies "One more curse" (all quotes > are Sp. Ed. GoF ch. 1, Liberal translation). > > Since I don't think Naama has them in my language, that's two against > one by now, although I'll be the first to admit that the only one that > really counts is the original, British text. Any brits out there that > care give us the original text? > > 'You rang?' Of course I've got the original! It even has James coming out of the wand first and Lily giving instructions to Harry, but that's a different topic..... Yes, the first UK edition of GOF says, 'One more curse.....' Eloise [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Ali at zymurgy.org Thu Aug 15 20:59:22 2002 From: Ali at zymurgy.org (alhewison) Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 20:59:22 -0000 Subject: Voldemort murders in GoF In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42711 Grey Wolf responding to the question about Voldemort's "murders/deaths" to be committed in GoF wrote: >>> Since I don't think Naama has them in my language, that's two against one by now, although I'll be the first to admit that the only one that really counts is the original, British text. Any brits out there that care give us the original text?>>> GoF 1st edition (& 4th edition?) UK p 15, Wormtail says: "if I CURSE" Voldemort says:- "one more obstacle removed" p16: "One more curse...my faithful servant at Hogwarts" It is still unclear why Scholastic made the changes to the text. Perhaps it was in response to Frank Bryce's musings about Voldemort: "And he was planning more murders-this boy, Harry Potter, whoever he was - was in danger...". From my perspective whilst Voldemort does not value life, there is no specific mention of death, so why does Bryce think that there is. He does understand the grave predicament that Harry is facing, but why the plural "more murders". I think that this section of text is "messy" whether you read the UK or US editions. The UK edition with mention of curse and obstacle proves itself to be canonically correct as Moody is imperioed, but for me at any rate Frank Bryce is reading more into Voldemort's speech than I can - but then again I have the advantage of being able to continually re-read it, and am not in a life-threatening situation! Ali From eloiseherisson at aol.com Thu Aug 15 21:02:04 2002 From: eloiseherisson at aol.com (eloiseherisson at aol.com) Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 17:02:04 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] More Re: Voldemort murders in GoF Message-ID: <193.b909b0f.2a8d70cc@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 42712 Heather: > Hmmm. Do you have a later edition or a translation of > a foreign version? I have GoF (American, p. 10) right > in front of me, and it clearly says "one more death." > Right before that Wormtail says "if I murder-" and > Voldemort interrupts with "the Ministry need never > know anyone else died." (paraphrasing here, sorry) > Then, on page 12, Volemort continues musing, "One more > murder..." So what I have is Voldemort *repeatedly* > saying that he is going to kill someone else. > > Abject apologies, folks. I replied to Grey Wolf's post having initially missed Heather's. This is weird. Grey Wolf's version appears to be closer to the UK than the US version. In the original UK edition, Wormtail says, 'If I curse...' and Voldemort says, 'the Ministry need never know that anyone else has disappeared.' I can only assume (knowing nothing about publishing) that the text was with both publishers before JKR became aware of an error that she later corrected and which was changed in the UK version, but not in the US. I came to the same conclusion (though I never shared it) about the ancestor/descendent error. Eloise [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From jbryson at richmond.infi.net Thu Aug 15 21:03:34 2002 From: jbryson at richmond.infi.net (tex23236) Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 21:03:34 -0000 Subject: Voldemort murders in GoF In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42713 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "ats_fhc3" wrote: > WHich brings me to ask this question: If someone is dead, can you > still use their hair to make Polyjuice Potion, and look like them? I'd guess that if you drank polyjuice with a sample from a corpse, you'd BE a corpse. I doubt you would come back to life when the potion wore off, though. A sample from a since-deceased person who was alive at the time the sample was taken, I dunno. It seems Mrs. Croutch retained Barty Jr.'s form after she died, so maybe it works the other way, too. tex From naama_gat at hotmail.com Thu Aug 15 21:09:29 2002 From: naama_gat at hotmail.com (naamagatus) Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 21:09:29 -0000 Subject: DEs knowing about Pettigrew (was re: too many topics to list) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42714 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "darrin_burnett" wrote: > But it brings up an interesting side point. Was V-Mort so arrogant > that he didn't make arrangements for someone to take over in case > something happened to him? Even Hitler had a second-in-command ready > to step in if one of those assassination attempts had ever worked. > > > Of course, V-Mort could have been so confident that he didn't make > such plans. Well, Hitler genuinely believed the Nazi ideals and dedicated himself to fulfilling them. Therefore, he could envision (presumably) a future in which he was gone but the Fatherland continues. Unlike him, Voldemort doesn't have an ideological wrapper around his psycopathy. Voldemort is Evil in the nude, so to speak, there's no ideology to blur his egomania, his total need for absolute power. I don't think Voldemort isn't capable of envisioning his own death on a real, gut feeling level. On the intellectual level? For Voldemort, I'm sure his reaction to "what happens if you die?" would be "after me, the deluge." Naama From msiscusack at yahoo.com Thu Aug 15 20:31:24 2002 From: msiscusack at yahoo.com (Kristin Cusack) Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 13:31:24 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Krum Message-ID: <20020815203124.93027.qmail@web13107.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 42715 bboy_mn wrote: Viktor: Off on a totally different topic. I think Viktor should have gotten full marks for his Human to Shark transformation. Me: Maybe he did get full marks for his ability to transfigure himself...they did say something along the line of (sorry no book with me) "Krum uses an incomplete form of tranfiguration, but effective none-the-less." I think you are negliecting to remember that Krum returned with his 'person' several minutes outside the hour time limit...I would suggest that this is where his penalty lies. Cedric who used a very good bubble head charm lost 3 points for being ONE minute outside the time limit...so I figure thats where he lost points, not his incomplete transfiguration. ~Kristin, who's knows this may seems a bit late but there was some misunderstandings between me brain and my computer and a lovely little elf as well. (Thanks for helping me)..but I'm pretty sure that this is still an original point to the list and I'm not reiterating something that has been said by 12 others...AGAIN! :) __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? HotJobs - Search Thousands of New Jobs http://www.hotjobs.com From meboriqua at aol.com Thu Aug 15 21:15:46 2002 From: meboriqua at aol.com (jenny_ravenclaw) Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 21:15:46 -0000 Subject: Prof. Trelawney deserves credit! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42716 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "naama2486" wrote: > I've been wondering for a while now about Trelawney. All through PoA she keeps seeing a Grim, in Harry's teacup, orb etc. right? Wrong! I don't think I'm the first that figured out that she had actually saw Sirius as an animagus, but mistakened him for a Grim. So she saw the sign, but read it wrong. That's more than most can do.> One of the successful tricks of most "psychics" is their ability to be vague in a way that anyone can fit into their predictions. Besides, one doesn't have to be a Seer to be able to read things like tea leaves, palms and Tarot cards. Those are things one can study and apply without ever actually Seeing the future. The only way I can think to explain this is that Venus and Serena Williams are two of the best tennis players to ever pick up racquets. They were taught by their father, who is in no way an athlete (I find him rather nasty, actually). He knew how to explain and apply the game to his daughters. Maybe Trelawney had an excellent teacher when she was in school and maybe Divination was her favorite course, causing her to work very hard to perfect her knowledge of the subject. > Morover, there are those two *true* predictions: the one about the return of LV and the one Dumbledore talks about (something like "that brings her total of true predictions to two", I don't remember the exact quote). I'd say that's a great deal for a fraud. I mean, if such predictions could come to anyone, how come Trelawney had them *twice*? There must be something about her after all, doesn't it?> There is, but unfortunately, Trelawney cannot control her abilities and denies it ever happened when Harry asks her about her trance. She'd rather try an impress a classroom filled with nervous students then work on self-inducing trances to See the future. Harry was not enough of an audience for Trelawney to accept his word. Whether or not Trelawney is the real thing, I think she uses her abilities for the wrong reasons. She has created a false aura about herself with her dramatic entrances and soft-voiced directions. She, like so many others, is taken with "Famous Harry Potter" and hopes he will rally around her, seeking her advice. She uses her "Seeing" to threaten students (remember what she told Neville about sharing exam information with his peers in PoA?). She cannot even distinguish the difference between her students' real efforts with their assignments and faking it and praises Ron and Harry when they make up dramatic and traumatic situations on their homework. McGonagall mentions later that Trelawney's speech about who will die is recycled every year. She likes to capture her audience. She may be smart and she may have true talents, but Trelawney has created a persona that is false, making it hard for me to respect her. I don't blame Hermione for giving up on Divinations class. --jenny from ravenclaw ******** From bdmorrp at budget.state.ny.us Thu Aug 15 21:22:46 2002 From: bdmorrp at budget.state.ny.us (erisedstraeh2002) Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 21:22:46 -0000 Subject: Ancestor or Descendant? (WAS: James Emerging First ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42717 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Gretchen ("mrflynn6") wrote: > I wonder if this is deliberate on JKR's part to cause confusion and > speculation reguarding the death of James and/or Lily. I feel it > is similar to the deliberate "mistake" of the descendent/ancestor > controversy. Now me: Glad you brought that up! The version of CoS that I just bought this summer has Dumbledore telling Harry that Voldemort is the last remaining *ancestor* of Salazar Slytherin. In an October 2000 Scholastic interview, JKR called this a *deliberate* error and said that it should read *descendant.* She also went on to say "That's been changed in subsequent editions (keep hold of the *ancestor* one, maybe it'll be valuable one day!)." I was wondering whether anyone actually has an edition in which *ancestor* was changed to *descendant?* And, any ideas on why JKR called it a *deliberate* error if it was subseqently fixed (or not, as in my edition)? Also, btw, thanks to all who responded to let me know what their versions of the text say in the various references to who came out of the wand first. Whether it's deliberate or not, this *is* causing confusion and speculation! Cheers, Phyllis who feels like Dobby with a new pair of mismatched socks now that she's off moderated status :) From meboriqua at aol.com Thu Aug 15 21:27:29 2002 From: meboriqua at aol.com (jenny_ravenclaw) Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 21:27:29 -0000 Subject: Trelawney deserves credit, But so does Ron! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42718 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "grey_wolf_c" wrote: >Pity *I* don't buy the idea. Proof? Ron gets predictions right because he scouts almost all the possibilities> First, so sorry for not combining. I read and responded to Naama's post before I read this. Here I must agree with Grey Wolf. Harry shows clear evidence of Seeing, based on the dreams he has not only about Voldemort, but also about hearing the hoof beats of his father's animagus form in PoA. His dreams may not be about the future, but I'd say that Seeing is also about knowing things happening elsewhere in the present. Ron, OTOH, may just be good at reading people. I remember him making a comment about "a really clever wizard" being able to fool Dumbledore in GoF. This could be interpreted at Seeing, but I'd say that it is simply a possible truth. Ron already knows that James, Sirius and Peter fooled Dumbledore when they were students at Hogwarts; why wouldn't an adult be able to do the same? If this is proof to some that Ron is a Seer, then we should probably say the same for Hermione: she sensed Trelawney's false persona right away. She also never believed that Draco was the heir of Slytherin in CoS, while Ron insisted on it for a good portion of the year. JKR seems to distinguish real Seers from the rest, by having them dream or go into trances. I'll believe Ron can See when he does one of these things. I'd also like to think that JKR wouldn't make Ron a Seer just because he is Harry's best friend who feels left out and each of the Trio should have special abilities. That would be cheap and cliched, don't you think? --jenny from ravenclaw ************************** From bdmorrp at budget.state.ny.us Thu Aug 15 21:33:54 2002 From: bdmorrp at budget.state.ny.us (erisedstraeh2002) Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 21:33:54 -0000 Subject: How Long Will Wormtail's New Hand Last? (WAS: Poor Wizards) In-Reply-To: <1CFEF034.4988DB45.007B4FA9@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42719 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., ksnidget at a... wrote: > There are limits to what magic can do. JKR has a set of > rules that she uses to decide what can and can't be done. > One of the rules (and I think she talks about it in an interview) > is that stuff you conjure up from nothing doesn't last. now me: I read that interview as well, and JKR says (in response to a question about why wizards need money) "something you conjure out of thin air will not last." But this made me wonder about the silver hand Voldemort conjures for Wormtail at the end of GoF. It was "conjured out of thin air" so will it also "not last?" ~Phyllis From dedanaan at shaw.ca Thu Aug 15 20:55:13 2002 From: dedanaan at shaw.ca (karen mcvicker) Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 15:55:13 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: A question about Unforgivables (specifically Imperius). References: Message-ID: <003b01c2449e$0d6aa690$6401a8c0@dedanaan> No: HPFGUIDX 42720 Hi Grey Wolf, Thanks for all the info about the unforgivables. I specifically needed to know about the Imperius and how it works in regards to breaking its hold on a person and my brother has stolen my HP books to read and hasn't given them back yet so I was working from memory. Your answers were along the lines of what I was thinking. I have another question, though. Would it be possible for a person to be under the influence of more than one Imperius at a time? I'm thinking that it would be possible but would like to know what others think. Karen From naama_gat at hotmail.com Thu Aug 15 21:52:06 2002 From: naama_gat at hotmail.com (naamagatus) Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 21:52:06 -0000 Subject: Introducing a New Memory Charm In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42721 Just a few comments... --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "lucky_kari" wrote: > > " In a world where Peter is Scabbers, I refuse to believe that JKR > sets up this fascinating possibility that Frank knew something, > something that could still influence the plot as a complete red > herring. It's well, as one my masters taught me when I was a young > padawan learner, not BIG BANGY. If JKR passes up on this chance, I > will be very disappointed." I'm with you here, Eileen. > > You see, something that has bugged me a lot about these "Neville has > Frank's secret stored away in his mind" theories is that they are all > due for a yellow flag violation. Nowhere in the Potterverse is there > yet any demonstration that this is an option. However, if one hears >a secret, one can definitely have it stored away in one's mind. The >only way Neville can be the messenger is IF Frank was tortured into > revealing the secret IN NEVILLE'S HEARING! Ummmm. Well. What if Neville simply overheard his father talking of this secret; while talking to his wife, for instance? I don't think it's imperative for Neville to have been present at the toruring scene in order for him to know the secret (this doesn't undermine the theory, btw). > > Well, well, well... Let me paint a picture for you. > > Fudge is first on the scene in the Longbottom affair just as he was > with Sirius Black. But, at the time of the Longbottoms' scandal Fudge is Minister of Magic. It never seemed right to me that he would be the first on the scene. Surely it's more reasonable to assume that it was a lower level MoM official who arrived first. It's not the same as the Sirius case, since at the time, Fudge wasn't the Minister (we can gather this from the fact that after Voldemort's fall, Dumbledore was asked to be Minister, and only after he refused, Fudge got the job by default). Naama From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Thu Aug 15 21:54:11 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 21:54:11 -0000 Subject: How Long Will Wormtail's New Hand Last? (WAS: Poor Wizards) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42722 Phyllis wrote: > now me: > > I read that interview as well, and JKR says (in response to a > question about why wizards need money) "something you conjure out of > thin air will not last." But this made me wonder about the silver > hand Voldemort conjures for Wormtail at the end of GoF. It > was "conjured out of thin air" so will it also "not last?" > > ~Phyllis I'd say that the amount of time a spell exists for depends on the power of the wizard or witch that uses it. Since Voldemort is at the top with the very best, it's entirely possible that the hand lasts a long time. Then again, it may not have been conjured out of thin air at all: it may be a summon of some sort of ghostly energy. Remember that it's not silver, it's just silvery. So was the bird Dumbledore used to call Hagrid previously in GoF. Whatever that material is, we don't know it's properties or how easy it is to conjure, nor how much it lasts. So, the answer I'd go for "probably lasts for a vear at a time". Once that time has passed, Peter has to go back to Voldy for a re-cast. There is, of course, no canon at all for that theory, so I'm trusting my gut-feeling, until JKR says otherwise (or someone whips out a convincing argument). Hope that helps, Grey Wolf From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Thu Aug 15 22:10:47 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 22:10:47 -0000 Subject: A question about Unforgivables (specifically Imperius). In-Reply-To: <003b01c2449e$0d6aa690$6401a8c0@dedanaan> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42723 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., karen mcvicker wrote: > Hi Grey Wolf, > > Thanks for all the info about the unforgivables. I specifically > needed to know about the Imperius and how it works in regards to > breaking its hold on a person and my brother has stolen my HP books > to read and hasn't given them back yet so I was working from memory. > Your answers were along the lines of what I was thinking. You're welcome. Don't take the answers as absolute canon, though. Although I've been working around Unforgivable's theory since I started on the list (my first post ever was on the nature of AK), there are still many blanck spots which I fill in what I believe is a logical fashion, but other people tend to think differently. > I have another question, though. Would it be possible for a person > to be under the influence of more than one Imperius at a time? I'm > thinking that it would be possible but would like to know what others > think. > > Karen There is no canon that prevents two equal curses from affecting the same individual, although I don't think I've ever though about it. Off the top of my head, I get two ideas of how would that go: Option a) You can be under two imperius at once, and you have to obey all the orders you're given. If at one moment the orders contradict themselves, either your brain goes haywire, you manage to obey both of them (a Murphy Law about working states "If you're given two contradictory orders, follow both"), or you have to obey the one with higher priority (how this priority gets set also subdivides into several theories, like the most powerful wizard gets higher priority, the most recent order gets higher priority, or the one ordered more harshly gets the higher priority, and there are other possibilities). Option b) as demonstrated by the effects of the several different curses thrown at Draco and his two bodyguards, several curses thrown against the same person interfere with each other and have unexpected results. What this effects could be are material for fan-fic, though, and I won't even begin to speculate (more because of lack of imagination due to sleepiness than because it's OT). I'd personally go for option B, because there is more canon to support it, although the multi-curse effect on Crabbe, Goyle and Drtaco were the result of different curses instead of the same one several times over. The bottom line is that the strange, unpredicatalbe result is more fun for imagination (or will be, when a good night's sleep gets it working once again). Of course, another possibility exists: that a second Imperius automatically dispells the first one, or eliminates it in some other way, but I don't beliewve that's possible, so I'll leave the development of that option to some other listee that believes in it. Hope that helps, Grey Wolf From Zarleycat at aol.com Thu Aug 15 23:56:34 2002 From: Zarleycat at aol.com (kiricat2001) Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 23:56:34 -0000 Subject: Ticket to ride - no wands necessary In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42724 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "bboy_mn" wrote: > bboy_mn opens his big mouth: > Personally, I don't think wands are needed to Apparate. Wand are a > point of focus, they are used when casting spell (charms, curse, > etc..). CASTING being the keyword; when you are trying to focus magic > outside of yourself on some external act of magic. > Apparating, requires mental focus on the location you want to end up > at, but all the magic to accomplish the event is internal. Certainly a logical explanation, but Apparation seems like a much bigger deal than, for instance, transfiguring a mouse into a pincushion, as Harry's class has to do for McGonagall. Granted, these are young wizards learning how to use and control their abilities. But, the skill or power needed to Apparate, since it involves transporting yourself in some sort of time/space continuum seems to me something that may require the use of a wand. Not to focus on a specific thing, but as a way to concentrate one's magical power. Maybe we can split the difference and assume that experienced wizards like Snape can apparate without a wand, but those new to it, like Percy in GoF, may still be using one. > Sirirus, the hippogryff, and Apparation- > Q: But, if an experienced wizard is able to do so without a wand, why > is Sirius still relying on Buckbeak for travel in GoF, when Apparation > would be quicker? > > I know you answered your own question, but I'd like to add some more. > > Sirius is originally located in West or Central Africa or for my > money, in Asia somewhere (Thailand or Malasyia, possibley India are my > best bets) based on the fact that he is sending large tropical birds > with mail to Harry. There is a limit to how far you can apparate. My > personal guess is that a common but very good wizard can apparate > consistendly for over a distance of 500 kilometers (about 300 miles, > again just my personal estimation). That means you can go from London > to Paris but you can't go from London to Hogwarts (both Glasgow and > Edinburgh are more than 500km from London). So there is no way Sirius > can apparate from Morocco or Thailand. But if arctic tern can fly from > the Arctic to the Antarctic and Monarch butterflys can fly from > Minnesota to Mexico and S.America then Buckbeak can certainly cover > the distance. Oh, I don't doubt that Buckbeak can handle the travel. And, yes, no one can apparate from Calcutta to London. But, one could certainly apparate in stages across the globe. The advantage? Travel can take place any time. One wouldn't have to spend time hiding Buckbeak from the various Muggles that might look up in the sky and say, "What the hell was that???" Potential disadvantages- maybe this sort of Apparating marathon would leave one exhausted, certainly not a state that Sirius needs... > When Harry saw Sirius in the fire, he looked good (or at least a lot > better), but when he saw him in the cave at Hogsmead, he looked really > bad again, so his abilities may have still been limited by stress. > > I also think that Sirius feels some obligation to look after Buckbeak. > (As you pointed out.) > > Once he is at Hogsmeed, he probably can apparate short distances, but > he doesn't have anywhere to go. Hogsmead/Hogwarts is where he wants to > and has to be, so where is he going to apparate to? Also, he can't > risk allowing himself to be seen, so it is safer for him to move > around as a lovable stray dog, than to apparate around in human form. > > This brings up a NEW QUESTION? > Q: Can animagi apparate while they are in animal form? > > Of course, we don't really know, but it's still an interesting > question. Personally, I think not. I think not, too. The potential for splinching when in a non-human form seems too great. And, if you are an illegal Animagus, why risk it? Marianne From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Fri Aug 16 00:12:16 2002 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (bboy_mn) Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 00:12:16 -0000 Subject: Welcome Back Harry (Was - Re: Missing 24hrs - Mark) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42725 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Hana" wrote: > Marc said: > about the 24 missing hrs: > > I am starting to reread SS, and when Harry goes to the Leaky > Couldron for the first time, Tom says something to the effect > of: > > "Welcome back Harry Potter, welcome back" or "Good to see you again". > > I guess his parents *could* have taken him by there when they were > alive, but it's very curious that Tom knows and has seen Harry at > his pub before. > > Me: Hana replied: > > I don't know if anyone mentioned this as I haven't had time to > follow the thread, but what if Hagrid stopped with baby Harry for > a drink? Hagrid might need one after the stress of the Potters' > deaths and London isn't ~that~ far out of the way. (Though I hope > he didn't spend 24 hours in the pub with a baby!) > > --- > --Hana > BBOY_MN Comments: TOM (LC):"Welcome back, Mr. Potter, welcome back." Tom is saying 'Welcome back to the wizard world, Mr. Potter, welcome back.' This is the first time Harry has entered the wizard's world since the day after his parents were killed. It must have been general knowledge that Harry was living in Surrey, because there are incidences of wizard people making very limited contact with him. Farther down on the same page: "Delighted, Mr.Potter, just can't tell you, Diggle's the name, Dedalus Diggle." "I've seen you before!" said Harry , as Dedalus Diggle's top fell off in the excitement. "You bowed to me once in a shop." "He remembers!" cried Dedalus Diggle, looking around at everyone. I don't have exact referrences but I'm sure there were incidences of other strange people that we now know to be wizards, waving or smiling at Harry. In any event, the 'welcome back' is to the wizard world, not 'welcome back' as in 'good to see you again'. bboy_mn From gandharvika at hotmail.com Thu Aug 15 23:19:16 2002 From: gandharvika at hotmail.com (Gail Bohacek) Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 23:19:16 +0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Prof. Trelawney deserves credit! Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42726 >Naama Writes: > > >Moreover, there are those two *true* predictions: the one about the > >return of LV and the one Dumbledore talks about (something like "that > >brings her total of true predictions to two", I don't remember the > >exact quote). I'd say that's a great deal for a fraud. I mean, if > >such predictions could come to anyone, how come Trelawney had them > >*twice*? There must be something about her after all, doesn't it? > > >So true, she's insanely fixed on seeing peoples' death, and true, I > >wouldn't let her look at my crystal ball from a mile, but still, she > >deserves *some* credit. And I wrote: >She also predicts things like Neville breaking her teacups (she keeps >herself in her room...how could she >have known that Neville is a klutz?) >and >Parvati's rabbit dying....don't little predictions count, too? Error on my part...it was Lavender's rabbit. Anyway...I thought I'd take Naama's quaffle and fly with it...when I got home, I looked through the books and listed every time Prof. Trelawney made a prediction, and then checked it to see whether it had come true or not. Here it is (if I've forgotten anything, please forgive me, I'm only human...) POA (soft cover US edition): Page 103, to Neville: "Is your grandmother well?" Neville; "I think so." Prof. T; "I wouldn't be so sure if I were you, dear."....Unconfirmed Prediction, we don't know if Neville's gran was alright or not...the books don't tell us. Also, the prediction may come true later on, only time will tell... To Parvati: "Beware a red-haired man"....Unconfirmed Prediction. She says that she will "...have a nasty bout of flu in Feb."....Unconfirmed...nothing was mentioned PoA that she was sick. "Around Easter, one of our members will leave us forever."....Confirmed, when Hermione storms out of class. To Lavender: "That thing you are dreading-it will happen on Fri. 16th of Oct."...Confirmed Prediction...Lavender seems to have been dreading th death of her pet rabbit, and she did get the bad news on the day Prof. T said (Oct 16th) so for all practical purposes, for Lavender, it did happen on that day...although Hermione discounts it. Page 106, reading Harry's tealeaves: "You have a deadly enemy." True, but then again, "Everybody knows that." "The club - an attack." Confirmed in GoF when he is attacked by Lord Voldemort. "The skull - danger in your path." also confirmed in GoF. "The Grim" Confirmed, if you take it that Grim=Sirius. Page 108, to Neville: "You'll be late next time..." Unconfirmed...the book does not tell us if he was late or not. Page 228, she told everybody at the dinner table that while crystal gazing that she saw herself coming to dine. I admit, kinda lame. Page 229: "I have seen that poor Prof. Lupin will not be with us for very long." Confirmed...Lupin had to leave Hogwarts by the end of PoA. Page 296: "The fates informed me that your exams in June will concern the orb." Very airy-fairy...or in the words of Hermione, "Well, honestly...'the fates have informed her'...who sets the exam? She does! What an amazing prediction." Page 298: She sees the Grim in Harry's crystal ball...Confirmed if Grim=Sirius. Page 324: Predicts Lord Voldemort's return...of course, confirmed in GoF. In GoF (soft cover UK version): Page 176: To Harry; "My inner eye sees past your brave face to the troubled soul within." Confirmed. Though Harry denies it, he still hurts because of his parents' death. "I see difficult times ahead for you, alas...most difficult." Confirmed. Page 176: "I fear the thing you dread will indeed come to pass, and perhaps sooner than you think." Confirmed...it crosses Harry's mind that the thing he dreads the most is Lord Voldemort returning. Prof. Trelawney then starts to speculate on Harry's astrological chart. She wonders if Harry is born under Saturn, which is a negative planet...this is hard to confirm since it would mean doing Harry's birth-chart. I don't think that JKR has gone so much in depth into the character as to assign his time of birth. But it would be interesting, though. What year was Harry born I wonder? She also asks if Harry was born in mid-winter...and I assume that she is thinking that Harry is a Pisces, which he isn't...but she was just guessing. Anyway, for whatever it's worth... -Gail B. _________________________________________________________________ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Fri Aug 16 00:31:45 2002 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (bboy_mn) Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 00:31:45 -0000 Subject: Wands In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42727 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "grey_wolf_c" wrote: > Marc wrote: > > on a side note of wands: > > > > If the wand chooses the witch/wizard, why is Draco's mom > > picking out his wand for him when Harry meets him for the > > first time at the robe shop? > > > > Marc Grey Wolf replied: > > Thanks for finding that little canon! I've always tried to held > the theory that Olivander's idea of the "wand choosing the wizard" > is just the private theory of a strange old man who has spent his > whole life selling wands, but up till now there was nothing in > which to base the gut feeling. Now, I've got that to back me up. > > My theory goes that, although it *is* possible that some wands are > better suited to a person than others, it is nowhere as strong as > Olivanders thinks it is. This explains why any wand will serve any > wizard, even hand-me-downs like Ron gets (that is, until he breaks > it). And even if what Olivander thinks is correct (he's the expert, > and all that), most of the WW *do not* believe that, but think that > any wand will work, and buy according to other principles: how > pretty it is, what is good for (as in "good for charms") or, in > the case of the Malfoys, probably basing in the cost ("the most > expensive one, please. Oh, and throw in a gold box to keep it in > so it doesn't loose the shine"). > > Hope that helps, > > Grey Wolf, who probably didn't give you the answer you were > looking for. bboy_mn Added: The quote: "My father's next door buying my books and my mother's up the street LOOKING at wands," said the boy. He has a bored, drawling voice. (Draco) SO, first she is just 'looking'. That could still imply that she was 'shopping' for a wand, although we are only assuming that the wand is for Draco. The wand picks the wizard- Think of a concert violin player, he may go into the largest music shop he can find and try every violin in the place before he finds one that suits him. Why? They all play, they are all made the same, yet when he finds that one perfect violin for him, he knows it. Certainly, the concert violin play can play just fine on any violin, but he will not get such good results as when he is playing on his personal favorite violin. Wands are the same way. The wizard and the wand are in finely tuned harmony, they have a mutual msgical resonance. Yet, in general, they all look the same, they all work the same, the are all made the same. You can make magic with any wand, but nothing makes sweet soulful magic like your own personal wand. I also assume that wands core have general characteristics that are unique to that type of core. All unicorn hair wands have a common nature, although, at the same time, they are all unique. Certain woods have a general nature, but when a unique piece of wood is combined with a unique core; they create a one of a kind wand that harbors it's own personal magical resonance. It's also possible that Ollivander, from knowing a particular family history and their wands, and knowing the general nature and disposition of a person, he can make an educated guess at to the right wand or favorable wand for a given person. For example, now that Hagrid's name is cleared, he may be buying a new wand. It probably won't happen this way, but theoretically, Ollivander, knowing Hagrid very well, could just choose a wand for him and owl it to Hagrid. I think most wizards would want to do it in person; just using that illustation to make a point. bboy_mn From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Fri Aug 16 01:09:13 2002 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (bboy_mn) Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 01:09:13 -0000 Subject: Elementary Education for Wizarding Children In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42728 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "supermouse35" wrote: GINA Said: > Hello all! I'm new to the list and have been enjoying it > immensely. :-) > > I was wondering if anyone has any theories as to how children > in the wizarding world are educated before they attend Hogwarts. > Since Hogwarts seems to be the equivalent of the American junior > high/high school, you'd think they would have to have some kind > of elementary school system in place, as well. But they don't > seem to, as Hogwarts appears to beginning of the educational > process for all magical children in the UK. The existence of a > magical elementary school system would also put children from > Muggle families at a distinct disadvantage when they begin > Hogwarts as they would not have access to it. > > So do these kids just sit around until they are 11 and then get > only 7 years of formalized education? > > Gina Bboy_mn replies: This is certainly a mystery. I guess the truest answer is we don't know. I assmume that some magic kids do go to muggle elementary schools. Since there is only one all magic village in Britain, Hogsmead, that would imply that most wizards live amoung, although somewhat separated from, the muggles. For the remainder, I have visions of the one room school house. Small private very local neighborhood schools run by some strict but fair reasonably educated witch or wizard. These people are educated in the basics of reading, writing, and arithmatic, with possible some wizard's history thrown in. Let's not forget home schooling. While the Weasley's live in a muggle town, they obviously didn't go to a muggle school. There are just too many things about muggle life that they don't understand for that to have happened. Still all these non-public wizard schools, would seem to leave these kids with a very limited education. At one point Hagrid is commenting about the Dursley not having told Harry anything about himself. Hagrid said: "Do yo mean ter tell me, ... that this boy..... this boy! ......knows nothin' abou' .... ANYTHING." Feeling slightly offended, Harry replies: "I know some things. I can, you know, do math and stuff." And that is probably true, having gone to a real school, he probably can do math and stuff. Whereas, Ron and his family may have mastered 'arithmatic', I seriously doubt that they've had much 'math'. So in terms of functioning at Horwards, Ron's education may be adequate, but I suspect he would be completely under educated by normal muggle school standards. Certainly, lacking basic muggle European history, basic science, geography, social studies, etc... bboy_mn From rvotaw at i-55.com Fri Aug 16 01:24:07 2002 From: rvotaw at i-55.com (Richelle Votaw) Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 20:24:07 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Imperious/Twin's Next Prank References: <20020815153449.71484.qmail@web40308.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <01a801c244c3$9ee64dc0$459fcdd1@istu757> No: HPFGUIDX 42729 Lilac writes: > Ah, those rambunctious twins! I look forward to their pranks as well. However, this post reminded me of a nagging fear I've been having for some time...that either Fred or George will die in book 5. They are both fans from the beginning (in fact, they are the *first* ones to discover that he is The Harry Potter in book 1). But the fact that there are two of them and that they are so much alike, plus there is that Weasley family clock that says "mortal peril", tells me it might be one of them. If it is, maybe JKR's reasoning is that because they are twins, this main-character death might be a little more tolerable because the dead twin's legacy will live on in the living twin. Of course, I hope I am wrong. The rest of the series woudn't have very much comic relief. I think a Weasley will die, too, or else what would be the point of JKR showing us the clock? Whether it's a twin or not, I'm not sure. There was that time they bewitched the snowballs to bounce off the back of Quirrell's turban, which means they were bouncing off Voldemort! I could about imagine that if one of the twins dies, the other one goes on with their joke shop idea, maybe name it after the deceased twin and keep his legacy alive. The more I read interviews with JKR, I wonder who all will die? She has implied that a good many people will die, but who will it be? Surely a lot of the people won't even be at Hogwarts, as that is the "safe house." Older people? Older Weasleys perhaps? Who will be out fighting Voldemort this time around? People like Lupin? Sirius? Richelle From rvotaw at i-55.com Fri Aug 16 01:31:08 2002 From: rvotaw at i-55.com (Richelle Votaw) Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 20:31:08 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] The Old Crowd (was Molly and Arthur's past) References: Message-ID: <01b101c244c4$a18f5840$459fcdd1@istu757> No: HPFGUIDX 42730 Corinthum wrote: > Sorry, didn't mean to leave you hanging. :) Many people seem to > think that because Dumbledore trusted Arthur and Molly enough to let > them into his "new crowd", they must have been a member of the "old > crowd". I disagree. I have a sort of mixed view on the Weasleys and the old crowd. We *know* that the old crowd must consist of the following: Remus Lupin Sirius Black Arabella Figg Mundungus Fletcher Albus Dumbledore Who else is to be included in the old crowd? Did I leave anyone out? Dumbledore must be part of it, and he specifically names Figg, Lupin, and Fletcher, and he is telling all of this to Sirius so all of those have to be part of the old crowd. Now, on to my views on the Weasleys. I think that Arthur may have been a part of the old crowd, but not Molly. During the reign of Voldemort, Molly was busy raising babies. I picture her as a "stay at home" witch, keeping her own family safe while her husband went out to fight in the war. Dumbledore asked Molly if he could count on her and Arthur. It's possible that if Arthur had been there he wouldn've had to ask. Also, there's the "Voldemort" or "You Know Who." Arthur says You Know Who, while the old crowd (as far as we know) says Voldemort. But that could be because Molly freaked out if he said Voldemort, and he'd have gotten used to saying You Know Who. Just my two cents on the matter. Feel free to add to my very short list of "old crowd" members! Richelle From nplyon at yahoo.com Fri Aug 16 01:50:32 2002 From: nplyon at yahoo.com (nplyon) Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 01:50:32 -0000 Subject: too many topics to list, please look for your name In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42731 > Way back when, I wrote: > < once he killed his father and grandparents, he hungered for more. > The more power he got, the more he craved. (snip) I think that > when he was 11, he may have been just as good a kid as Harry was. >> To which catlady de los angeles replied: > > I suspect that what you suggest is what JKR intended, in line with > her preaching about making choices. However, Diary!Tom said: "I > fashioned myself a new name, a name I knew wizards everywhere > would one day fear to speak, when I had become the greatest > sorcerer in the world!" "Fear to speak". *Before* he killed his > father, it was already his ambition to be feared by all wizarding > folk. And he raved insanely about "Salazar Slytherin's noble > plan". He said it had taken him five years to learn how to open > the Chamber of Secrets, so he had started searching for it already > *in his first year* at Hogwarts. So he was already a loony when he > was a first-year student ... he wanted to kill "Mudbloods" and > terrorize wizards, not just to kill his father. And now me again: Sorry, this is horribly belated but I am about 200 posts behind so this is the first I'm seeing of this. These are very good points. I had my chronology mixed up, mostly because I was at work attempting to type furtively when I wrote that post. :) The basis of my theory, though, is that a lot of the impetus for Riddle's transformation into Voldemort, a ravingly maniacal evil overlord, is tied to his feelings about his father. I think that this also has to do with why he thinks old Salazar's statements are so noble. I think Riddle hated the fact that he was part Muggle because he considered the Muggle part of him as being the worst part of him. He saw his father, a Muggle, as being weak and cowardly and so I think that he pretty much associates these traits with all Muggles with the end result that he became so loathing of Muggles that he sees a lot of sense in the idea that they must all be eliminated. By eliminating them, he is also killing off some of his own humanity. As for the murders he commits, I am not disputing that Voldemort enjoys killing and torture but I don't think it's so much the killing and the torturing that he enjoys, it's the sense of power that these things provide. I think he gets his kicks off feeling more powerful than everyone else. I think the key in the quote is that he wants to become "the greatest sorcerer in the world." Yes, I do think he enjoys going after other wizards but I think that his murder of his father is a special sort of triumph, rewarding him with a special sense of power. Furthermore, not only does he triumph over his father by killing him, he triumphs even further by desecrating his father's grave. I think he always felt that his father was more powerful than him because the memory of his father had the power to hurt him. I believe he feels that he is usurping this power by murdering his father and, later, by desecrating the grave. Thus, the murder of his father is especially significant because, from what I have seen, his father is one of the very few people in the world who held any sort of power over him. The only other people I can think of who have power over him are Dumbledore and Harry. This contributes to why I think Dumbledore is going to die. Of course Voldemort is trying his best to kill Harry but Harry is, after all, the hero of the books so I think he can hardly die before book 7 and Voldemort's downfall. But that's a different topic for another day... :) Basically, I think that the strong theme of absent fathers in the books serves to point out another of the great differences between Harry and Voldemort. Voldemort reviles his father and hungers to do all he can to avenge himself against the man while Harry hungers to learn about his father because he feels that his father was brave and admirable. I think that Voldemort and Harry are excellent foils for one another. As foils, they perfectly illustrate JKR's theme that it is choice and not heredity that make all the difference in the world. I agree with people who theorize that Harry has some special sort of gift and I don't think it contradicts the idea of choice over heredity. In fact, I think it perfectly illustrates it as Harry is so talented and so special that he could perhaps achieve absolute power but he chooses to use his talents for good. ~Nicole, whose thoughts make perfect sense in her head but do not always translate well when she attempts to post them. :) From lucky_kari at yahoo.ca Fri Aug 16 02:22:29 2002 From: lucky_kari at yahoo.ca (lucky_kari) Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 02:22:29 -0000 Subject: Introducing a New Memory Charm In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42732 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "naamagatus" wrote: > > Just a few comments... > > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "lucky_kari" wrote: > > > > > " In a world where Peter is Scabbers, I refuse to believe that JKR > > sets up this fascinating possibility that Frank knew something, > > something that could still influence the plot as a complete red > > herring. It's well, as one my masters taught me when I was a young > > padawan learner, not BIG BANGY. If JKR passes up on this chance, I > > will be very disappointed." > > I'm with you here, Eileen. Thanks! I think we're a minority here, but we can set up our deck chairs on the Big Bang Destroyer... (not going any further, since this isn't a TBAY post) > Ummmm. Well. What if Neville simply overheard his father talking of > this secret; while talking to his wife, for instance? I don't think > it's imperative for Neville to have been present at the toruring > scene in order for him to know the secret (this doesn't undermine the > theory, btw). Yes. That's very true. However, memory charm people are quite often rather bloodthirsty folks, and can't stand not to have Neville about that night. > > > > Well, well, well... Let me paint a picture for you. > > > > Fudge is first on the scene in the Longbottom affair just as he was > > with Sirius Black. > > But, at the time of the Longbottoms' scandal Fudge is Minister of > Magic. No, he wasn't. It was the Longbottom affair that made him Minister of Magic. Check "Padfoot Returns" where Sirius explains that after the trial, Fudge was made Minister while Crouch was shifted to International Co-operation. It seems to me that Fudge was likely to still be in Magical Catastrophes at the time of the Longbottom affair. >(we can gather > this from the fact that after Voldemort's fall, Dumbledore was > asked to be Minister, and only after he refused, Fudge got the job by > default). No, only after Crouch had been taken out of the running (see above). And, I'm a little skeptical about Dumbledore being offered the job and refusing it. That's Hagrid's POV, but do we see any evidence of that unity in the wizarding world after Voldemort's fall? Sirius mentions that a lot of people were keen for Crouch, and I'm pretty certain they weren't keen for Dumbledore. I put down Hagrids "they wanted him for Minister" with "not a witch or wizard went bad that wasn't in Slytherin" etc. Eileen From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Fri Aug 16 02:34:53 2002 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (bboy_mn) Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 02:34:53 -0000 Subject: Magic and Law Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42733 This was brought up in the past, and I never got a chance to comment on it, or at least didn't get to make this comment. Magic and Law- Why is it, when Harry performs magic away from school, the Ministry of Magic freaks out? Yet, Fred and George seem to be performing magic nonstop for the entire summer holiday. They spent all their time in their room cooking up magic inventions; most jokes and tricks. So why don't they get owls from the Ministry warning the that they will be expelled if they don't stop? Hardly seems fair. Of course the answer is the difference between a misdemeanor, and a gross misdemeanor or felony. Kids performing magic is the magic world is classified as mischief, a minor misdemeanor; and the Ministry hardly has time to chase every kid toying with magic. So, while technically illegal, Fred and George do toy with magic all the time, generally it causes no harm, so the Ministry doesn't waste any resources on them. Harry on the other hand lives with muggles, and it seem like the main job of the Ministry is to keep muggle from finding out about magic people. So when Harry performs magic, he is violating the 'mischief' misdemeanor which wouldn't be a big deal, but he is also violating the gross misdemeanor/felony of performing magic in front of muggles. This is a big deal. This may require the Ministry to send over a team of obliviators from the Improper Use of Magic Office to erase peoples memories, and smooth things over. This is exactly what the Ministry had to do when Harry blew up his aunt. So this is certainly a more serious crime; very serious in the eyes of the Ministry. However, if Harry performed magic while staying at the Weasley's, I think it would hardly raise an eyebrow anywhere. That's my story and I'm sticking to it. bboy_mn From jodel at aol.com Fri Aug 16 00:13:09 2002 From: jodel at aol.com (jodel at aol.com) Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 20:13:09 EDT Subject: Dobby & the Chamber Message-ID: <94.2af2b13a.2a8d9d95@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 42734 Gretchen brings up a point that I've debated myself. How DID Dobby know that the Chamber was to be opened? Or perhaps the question is more accruately; Just what plots against Harry Potter had Dobby overheard? Because there is no certainly that Dobby knew about the Chamber. Only that there was a plot. Which brings up the question of who was Lucius Malfoy plotting with? Because Elves aren't mind readers so far as we know. Lucius must have been discussing this with someone in order for Dobby to have overheard. Another issue is; Isn't it just a bit overly fortuitious that Dobby was given instructions to scare Harry Potter away from Hogwarts as well? There was no purpose to be served by warning Harry that there was a plot against him. Ergo, Dobby grossly exceeded his orders by passing on the warning. But in that case, it stands to reason that he must have had orders to exceed in contacting Harry at all. The twins thought that Dobby had been sent by Draco, and that is possible. Richelle poins out that Draco doesn't know as much as he *thinks* he does, and she's right. It would make a certain poetic justice that Draco managed to throughly screw up his father's plans, but somehow it doesn't quite convince me. And besides; WOULD Dobby have gone flying to Harry Potter in a panic of warnings over a plot against *Ginny Weasley?* I don't thinkso. I think that a lot more about that alleged "plot" went awry than can be accounted for by Dobby's warning. And we watched it happen. That exercise was a cock-up from the beginning. I suggest that HARRY was supposed to have been the one to be given the Riddle diary. It was Harry who was supposed to have been reeled in and taken over. It was Harry who was supposed to open the Chamber, set the basilisk on the other students, and it was harry who was supposed to exchange his life for that of 16-year-old Tom Riddle. And it might have gone off except that Muggle-loving Arthur Weasley, when goaded, rather than going for his wand like any self-respecting wizard threw a punch instead, dragged Lucius Malfoy into a fistfight in public (in a bookstore packed with Lockhart's fans for the book signing, just to add insult to injury) and so enraged Malfoy that he deliberately planted the diary on Arthur's daughter (quite possibly the apple of her father's eye) instead. But this still doesn't answer the question of WHO Lucius was plotting with, or when he was doing it that the plan to deploy the Riddle diary came up in the first place. There can't have been many people, even among the DEs who knew the Riddle diary existed. -JOdel From jodel at aol.com Fri Aug 16 00:13:10 2002 From: jodel at aol.com (jodel at aol.com) Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 20:13:10 EDT Subject: Hermione's other friends Message-ID: <134.12eee0b9.2a8d9d96@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 42735 This one is short, but I haven't seen it brought up before (so far, I'm fairly new) Olivia Grey writes; << I think I'm thinking of Hermione when I type this. Her two closest friends are male (not counting Neville), I don't even know of any other girls Hermione even pals around with the exception of Ginny. >> Well, from Goblet one gets a strong sense that when she isn't being co-opted by Hagrid for legal research, or Harry for personal coaching (or lying in the infimary petrified by a Basilisk) she is hanging out with the Ravenclaws. There could be a whole little gaggle of them parked around the same table just about every evening in the library. After all, she can say with conviction that Mandy Brocklehurst is *really nice* (and that her acne is getting better). And she even halfway tries tries to fix Mandy up with Ron. (At least at the beginning of the year.) -JOdel From jodel at aol.com Fri Aug 16 00:13:13 2002 From: jodel at aol.com (jodel at aol.com) Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 20:13:13 EDT Subject: Voldemort Murders Message-ID: <12c.16036493.2a8d9d99@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 42736 Richelle brought up the question of the timing of the conversation in the Riddle House which Harry witnessed. And, Yes, she is right. The conversation took place in the summer, before the World Cup. At this point, Crouch Jr. was still in his father's custody. It is clea from the text that that particular conversation took place on Riddle's first night back in England after Wormtail was able to give him a rudimentary physical form. Or, in other words, the night that Frank Bryce "dissapeared" is the evening that we can pinpoint Riddle's return to England and the point at which he came into close enough physical proximity that Harry is able to pick up his "signal". We saw this before in the dreams that Harry had in his forst year durring the Squirellymort incident. Bt Riddle did not have a true physical manifestation at that point, and the dreams were not direct transfers of what was actually happening. At the point that Voldemort and Wormtail returned to England, they knew, from Bertha Jorkins that Crouch Jr. was alive and after being kept a prisoner by his own father for the past decade was just about guaranteed to still be loyal. At this point Voldemort was still working out the details of the plot to be set in motion for the upcomming school ear. He knew that Crouch was a brilliant actor, so an impersonation of some kind was being worked out. During his time with the Weasleys Wormtail had managed to pick up the information that there was a move to revive the Triwizard Tournement, which would involved Crouch Sr.'s Department. This offered possibilities. At this point, the comment about "one more murder" is throughly nebulous. They were not talking about Harry's murder, since they state clearly that this one murder would clear their way to Harry. In the following action which takes place, there are two murders that we are told of. That of Crouch Sr. and that of Cedric Diggory. Diggory's murder was unplanned. That of Crouch Sr. was inconvenient to everybody. What I think is that the murder to which Voldemort refers is one which did not actually take place, or which did not take place acording to its part in the original plan. Crouch Sr. was much more useful under control than dead. But they may have been resigned to killing him in order to neutralize the fact that the Crouches had an elf. House elves have powerful magic and it is at their Masters' command. Once Crouch Sr. was dead, Crouch Jr. would be Master, and the elf would need to do as he commanded. I sugggest that the original plan may have been that Winky would be delegated to caring for Voldemort in the Crouch home while Wormtail impersonated Crouch Sr often enough to keep people from realizing that he was dead, bringing as much of his work as possible home, and delegating most of the duties of the Tournement to his assistant. Given that there are several thousand hairs in a normal human scalp they would have been able to harvest enough to keep Wormtail in Polyjuice for a few months worth of appearances and stage another 'disapearance" at some point during the year. At this point in the proceedings they did not know that Crouch Sr. would play right into their hands by freeing his elf. Conversely, they may have been planning to kill Winky. although we do not know whether DE mindset classifies the killing of another wizard's House Elf as murder. Another thing they did not know at the time of the conversation in the Riddle House is that Alistor Moody was designated to be the next DADA teacher at Hogwarts. When Wormtail made his escape to seek out Voldemort, Remus Lupin was still DADA Professor, and so far as he knew, due to return in the following year. It is possible that the original plan was to capture one of the existing Hogwarts staff in order to facilitate Crouch's impersonation. The fact that Moody was replacing Lupin would have come from the Crouches. This would make everything much easier, since only Dumbledore appeas to have known Moody well, making mistakes less obvious to the general audience. -JOdel From rvotaw at i-55.com Fri Aug 16 02:47:38 2002 From: rvotaw at i-55.com (Richelle Votaw) Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 21:47:38 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Magic and Law References: Message-ID: <000801c244cf$499955e0$059fcdd1@istu757> No: HPFGUIDX 42737 bboy_mn writes: > Harry on the other hand lives with muggles, and it seem like the main > job of the Ministry is to keep muggle from finding out about magic > people. So when Harry performs magic, he is violating the 'mischief' > misdemeanor which wouldn't be a big deal, but he is also violating the > gross misdemeanor/felony of performing magic in front of muggles. This > is a big deal. This may require the Ministry to send over a team of > obliviators from the Improper Use of Magic Office to erase peoples > memories, and smooth things over. This is exactly what the Ministry > had to do when Harry blew up his aunt. So this is certainly a more > serious crime; very serious in the eyes of the Ministry. I agree. And to elaborate a little, not only is Harry living with Muggles, but he is *Harry Potter." The boy who lived. Since he is sent to live at least part of every summer with the Dursleys for protection (through no fault of their own of course ;) !) performing magic draws attention to that particular Muggle residence. And he's they're for protection, not to put up a flashing sign saying, "Harry Potter lives here, come on over!" Yet when he *does* do magic it pulls out the top notch people to run after him and repair whats been done and others to make sure he's okay. I somehow doubt anybody went to the Weasleys after Ron's teddy bear was turned into a spider to see if he was coping. ;) On the other hand, if Harry *were* to perform magic at the Weasleys, big deal. There are lots of wizards there, and a couple of witches, so who's to know the difference? Who would care? Richelle From judyshapiro at earthlink.net Fri Aug 16 03:02:33 2002 From: judyshapiro at earthlink.net (judyserenity) Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 03:02:33 -0000 Subject: Ancestor or Descendant? / Wand Order Problem In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42738 Phyllis said: > The version of CoS that I just bought this > summer has Dumbledore telling Harry that Voldemort is the last > remaining *ancestor* of Salazar Slytherin. In an October 2000 > Scholastic interview, JKR called this a *deliberate* error and said > that it should read *descendant.* > ...any ideas on why JKR called it a *deliberate* > error if it was subseqently fixed (or not, as in my edition)? > > Also, btw, thanks to all who responded to let me know what their > versions of the text say in the various references to who came out of > the wand first.... Ah, the ancestor/descendant problem! This has come up before; see message 40425 for a previous thread about this topic. Phyllis, if you look at that thread, or search on "ancestor" you can probably find some information on which editions were corrected and which were not. I have the US trade paperback version, and it says "ancestor." I was confused about JKR's statement that it was a "deliberate" error, too. However, the last time this came up, I got an email from one of the British folks here (David, aka Davewitley), telling me that "You've caught the deliberate error" is just a humorous British way of admitting that one has made a mistake. (I guess that makes it a *humourous* way of admitting a mistake.) David thought JKR was just owning up to an error. The wand error made major news, even outside of Harry Potter Fandom, when GoF first came out. It's not something I know much about, but there is a lot of information about it in the Harry Potter lexicon. The section that discusses the wand order problem is at http://www.i2k.com/~svderark/lexicon/timeline_potters.html -- Judy Serenity From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Fri Aug 16 03:11:19 2002 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (bboy_mn) Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 03:11:19 -0000 Subject: Ron: GoF: Betrayed or Jealous? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42739 HPfGU FAQ: speaking about Ron: "...his jealousy in GoF was triggered because Harry was the centre of attention one time too many." That was not my take on what happened. Certainly, there was some jealousy, but I think the key was betrayal; betrayal of friendship. When Harry's name came out of the goblet, Ron felt betrayed. He felt like Harry had a secret, Harry had a way to fool the age circle and he didn't let Ron in on it. True, there is an element of jealousy in the sense that, he didn't let Ron in on it because he wanted all the glory for himself. But I still say that the really hurt was the sense of betrayal of their friendship. Harry had the secret, in Ron's eyes, to getting past the age ring, he knew Ron wanted to put his own name in, combined with Ron's own sense that he was Harry's absolute best friend, and then Harry left him on the outside. Harry failed to confide in the one person who was his truest and deepest friend. I don't think Ron's pain was in Harry getting the glory one more time, it was in his belief that Harry held their friendship in such low value that he couldn't be bother with sharing the secret with Ron. It was betrayal not desire for glory that made Ron's heartache. bboy_mn From lucky_kari at yahoo.ca Fri Aug 16 03:55:48 2002 From: lucky_kari at yahoo.ca (lucky_kari) Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 03:55:48 -0000 Subject: Voldemort Murders In-Reply-To: <12c.16036493.2a8d9d99@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42740 This is a very interesting discussion, made thoroughly bizarre, of course, by the fact that my edition reads "one more curse." I do think that this was a correction that got into some of the editions, but not others. However, this speculation is so interesting, I can't help but join in on the off chance that "one more murder" isn't just an escaped error. --- In HPforGrownups at y..., jodel at a... wrote: > During his time with the Weasleys Wormtail had managed to pick up the > information that there was a move to revive the Triwizard Tournement, which > would involved Crouch Sr.'s Department. This offered possibilities. No. Crouch Jr. specifically states in "Veritaserum" that Bertha Jorkins was the one who told Voldemort about the Triwizard Tournament. > What I think is that the murder to which Voldemort refers is one which did > not actually take place, or which did not take place acording to its part in > the original plan. Which is a very cool idea.... Both your scenarios I liked very much. > > Another thing they did not know at the time of the conversation in the Riddle > House is that Alistor Moody was designated to be the next DADA teacher at > Hogwarts. No, again. Crouch Jr. states that Bertha Jorkins revealed this to Voldemort. So, Voldemort and Wormtail were perfectly aware of the new DADA hiring. Eileen From jkusalavagemd at yahoo.com Fri Aug 16 03:04:38 2002 From: jkusalavagemd at yahoo.com (jkusalavagemd) Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 03:04:38 -0000 Subject: Forms of Reference for Voldie: WAS The Old Crowd (was Molly and Arthur's past) In-Reply-To: <01b101c244c4$a18f5840$459fcdd1@istu757> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42741 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Richelle Votaw" wrote: Also, there's the "Voldemort" or "You Know Who." Arthur says > You Know Who, while the old crowd (as far as we know) says Voldemort. But > that could be because Molly freaked out if he said Voldemort, and he'd have > gotten used to saying You Know Who. > > Just my two cents on the matter. Feel free to add to my very short list of > "old crowd" members! > > Richelle You make a most interesting observation. I had noticed that supporters of Voldemort tended to refer to him as the "Dark Lord", rather that the "You-Know-Who" or "He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named" form which appears to be the way the Wizarding World at large refers to him. I had not, however, made the connection between referring to Voldemort by name and membership in the "Old Crowd". I don't know if any of these are invariable. Does Remus Lupin always refer to Voldemort by name, or is any willingness to make mention of his name enough to put one into the "Old Crowd" basket? We shall have to wait at least until OoP to confirm this, but it is very interesting. One character who refers to Voldemort by name is definitely not one of the old crowd, of course-- Harry. Haggridd From lilac_bearry at yahoo.com Fri Aug 16 06:34:05 2002 From: lilac_bearry at yahoo.com (Lilac) Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 23:34:05 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [FILK] Summertime Message-ID: <20020816063405.48465.qmail@web40310.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 42742 SUMMERTIME to the tune of "Summertime" from PORGY AND BESS midi link http://www.broadwaymidi.com/cgi-bin/schlabo/dl.pl?PorgyAndBess-Summertime02 Dedicated to Gail (THE SCENE: The summer after GOF, Harry is sitting up in the smallest bedroom of Number 4 Privet Drive, lamenting his current living arrangements with the Dursley's, who unknowingly provide him with protection while under their roof.) HARRY: Summertime and I'm stuck at the Dursley's for 2 long months, though it seems like a year. Yeah, my dad was rich and he left me some money, but I can't escape yet, I'm "safe" here. One of these mornings I'm gonna tell them, "I'm leaving!" and I'll get my broom, and I'll take to the sky. But Dumbledore said to stay 'till he tells me. Guess their "protection" keeps me alive. ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~ "Tut, tut --- hardly any of you remembered that my favorite color is *lilac*. I say so in Year with the Yeti." --Gilderoy Lockhart, COS --------------------------------- Do You Yahoo!? HotJobs, a Yahoo! service - Search Thousands of New Jobs [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Arcum_Dagsson at celticwind.zzn.com Fri Aug 16 07:00:34 2002 From: Arcum_Dagsson at celticwind.zzn.com (arcum42) Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 07:00:34 -0000 Subject: Forms of Reference for Voldie: WAS The Old Crowd (was Molly and Arthur's past) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42743 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "jkusalavagemd" wrote: > > You make a most interesting observation. I had noticed that > supporters of Voldemort tended to refer to him as the "Dark Lord", > rather that the "You-Know-Who" or "He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named" form > which appears to be the way the Wizarding World at large refers to > him. I had not, however, made the connection between referring to > Voldemort by name and membership in the "Old Crowd". I don't know if > any of these are invariable. Does Remus Lupin always refer to > Voldemort by name, or is any willingness to make mention of his name > enough to put one into the "Old Crowd" basket? > Remus refers to Voldemort as "Lord Voldemort", as does Quirrell, Diary!Tom Riddle, and Dumbledore. Sirus Black says Voldemort, and Moody says both "Voldemort" and "the Dark Lord". Fudge usually says "You-know-who", but does say "Lord Voldemort" once in GoF. Peter Pettigrew also alternates between "He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named"[1] and "Voldemort"... > We shall have to wait at least until OoP to confirm this, but it is > very interesting. One character who refers to Voldemort by name is > definitely not one of the old crowd, of course-- Harry. > Minerva also uses "You-know-who", and I tended to place her as old crowd. [1] I originally accidentally typed "He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Naked" here, and it still seems appropriate... --Arcum From tmarends at yahoo.com Fri Aug 16 07:38:20 2002 From: tmarends at yahoo.com (tmarends) Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 07:38:20 -0000 Subject: Dobby & the Chamber In-Reply-To: <94.2af2b13a.2a8d9d95@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42744 JOdel wrote: > Gretchen brings up a point that I've debated myself. How DID Dobby know that > the Chamber was to be opened? Or perhaps the question is more accruately; > Just what plots against Harry Potter had Dobby overheard? Because there is no > certainly that Dobby knew about the Chamber. Only that there was a plot. > I agree. I don't think Dobby knew that the Chamber was going to be opened, just that something bad was going to happen. Also, I don't think Lucius Malfoy told Diary!Riddle much about what had happened to Voldemort, if he even communicated with Diary!Riddle at all. Diary! Riddle tells Harry that he learned about his downfall from Ginny. Tim A. From rvotaw at i-55.com Fri Aug 16 11:41:50 2002 From: rvotaw at i-55.com (Richelle Votaw) Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 06:41:50 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Voldemort Murders References: Message-ID: <005c01c24519$e9cfbdc0$33a0cdd1@istu757> No: HPFGUIDX 42745 Eileen writes: > This is a very interesting discussion, made thoroughly bizarre, of > course, by the fact that my edition reads "one more curse." I do think > that this was a correction that got into some of the editions, but not > others. However, this speculation is so interesting, I can't help but > join in on the off chance that "one more murder" isn't just an escaped > error. This is interesting. What do the original U.S. and British editions say? I have a later U.S. edition and it says "one more murder. . . my faithful servant at Hogwarts." Does the uncorrected (for the priori incantatum scene) U.S. edition say the same? If so, it may just be a U.S. modification so we silly Americans won't think Voldemort wants to call someone a bad name. If the British was changed to murder it may have been an error. Anybody have early and late editions to compare? Richelle From rvotaw at i-55.com Fri Aug 16 11:44:43 2002 From: rvotaw at i-55.com (Richelle Votaw) Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 06:44:43 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Forms of Reference for Voldie: WAS The Old Crowd (was Molly and Arthur's past) References: Message-ID: <006301c2451a$50c5c600$33a0cdd1@istu757> No: HPFGUIDX 42746 Haggridd wrote: > You make a most interesting observation. I had noticed that > supporters of Voldemort tended to refer to him as the "Dark Lord", > rather that the "You-Know-Who" or "He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named" form > which appears to be the way the Wizarding World at large refers to > him. I had not, however, made the connection between referring to > Voldemort by name and membership in the "Old Crowd". I don't know if > any of these are invariable. Does Remus Lupin always refer to > Voldemort by name, or is any willingness to make mention of his name > enough to put one into the "Old Crowd" basket? Actually it wasn't just the fact that Lupin refers to Voldemort by name, but also that Dumbledore sent for him, mentioning him in the same sentence as the others. " . . . Remus Lupin, Arabella Figg, Mundungus Fletcher--the old crowd." > We shall have to wait at least until OoP to confirm this, but it is > very interesting. One character who refers to Voldemort by name is > definitely not one of the old crowd, of course-- Harry. Yes, but then Harry stands in a class of his own. :) The only known person to have survived an AK, the only one to live once Voldemort decided to kill him, etc. Richelle From mrflynn6 at yahoo.com Fri Aug 16 13:13:14 2002 From: mrflynn6 at yahoo.com (mrflynn6) Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 13:13:14 -0000 Subject: Dobby & the Chamber/Ancestor/descendent--New topic--D'dore at GoF selection In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42747 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "tmarends" wrote: > JOdel wrote: > >> > > I agree. I don't think Dobby knew that the Chamber was going to be > opened, just that something bad was going to happen. Also, I don't > think Lucius Malfoy told Diary!Riddle much about what had happened to > Voldemort, if he even communicated with Diary!Riddle at all. Diary! > Riddle tells Harry that he learned about his downfall from Ginny. > > Tim A. -------------------------------------- Except, what about that not so helpful clue about what was happening? Harry asked Dobby if it had anything to do with Voldermort and Dobby said no. At the end of the book Dobby said he gave him that clue because Voldermort had changed his name from Tom Riddle, so Dobby had to have known what was going to happen. As for the ancestor/descendent controversy. I am sure we will find out that Voldermort is using a time turner or other form of time travel. I just think that JKR put those "mistakes" in on purpose. There isn't one little detail in any of the books that doesn't have a purpose. In re-reading GoF, I noticed somthing that didn't stand out in previous readings. Right after Harry was selected as the 4th champion (p 272-273 US edition), "McGonagall got to her feet....to whisper something to Dumbledore. ... Then Dumbledore got up, and nodded to McGonagall..." What did she have to say and why did Dumbledore nod back? It left me with the impression that they knew this was going to happen. Did he know who put their names in the cup? Is Dumbledore controling all these things that happen to Harry to prepare him for the "final battle"? From meboriqua at aol.com Fri Aug 16 13:37:20 2002 From: meboriqua at aol.com (jenny_ravenclaw) Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 13:37:20 -0000 Subject: Prof. Trelawney deserves credit! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42748 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Gail Bohacek" wrote about Trelawney's predictions: > Page 229: "I have seen that poor Prof. Lupin will not be with us for very long." Confirmed...Lupin had to leave Hogwarts by the end of PoA. > Page 176: To Harry; "My inner eye sees past your brave face to the troubled soul within." Confirmed. Though Harry denies it, he still hurts because of his parents' death. > > "I see difficult times ahead for you, alas...most difficult." Confirmed. > > Page 176: "I fear the thing you dread will indeed come to pass, and perhaps sooner than you think." Confirmed...it crosses Harry's mind that the thing he dreads the most is Lord Voldemort returning.> I still don't see any of these things as real predictions or psychic ability on Trelawney's part. If Trelawney knew, as I thought all of the professors did (I could be wrong, as it isn't stated in PoA), that Lupin is a werewolf, it is a very good guess that he won't last at Hogwarts. That's being realistic, not psychic. We all know what a hard time Lupin has had. As for her predictions about Harry, I have to once again say that anyone can guess that Harry will be dealing with tough times. Someone is always after him, whether it is Voldemort himself, the press (Rita Skeeter) or the public (Colin Creevey). I also think Trelawney is taking a cheap shot when she talks about his "troubled soul". Which 13 year old kid without parents doesn't have a troubled soul? Who wouldn't feel troubled knowing that someone as big and bad as Voldemort was after them? Anyone who can read people can make these guesses. I can read my own students in this way; it doesn't make me psychic. --jenny from ravenclaw ****************** From meboriqua at aol.com Fri Aug 16 13:56:15 2002 From: meboriqua at aol.com (jenny_ravenclaw) Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 13:56:15 -0000 Subject: Ron: GoF: Betrayed or Jealous? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42749 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "bboy_mn" wrote: > When Harry's name came out of the goblet, Ron felt betrayed. He felt like Harry had a secret, Harry had a way to fool the age circle and he didn't let Ron in on it. True, there is an element of jealousy in the sense that, he didn't let Ron in on it because he wanted all the glory for himself. But I still say that the really hurt was the sense of betrayal of their friendship. Harry had the secret, in Ron's eyes, to getting past the age ring, he knew Ron wanted to put his own name in, combined with Ron's own sense that he was Harry's absolute best friend, and then Harry left him on the outside. Harry failed to confide in the one person who was his truest and deepest friend. I don't think Ron's pain was in Harry getting the glory one more time, it was in his belief that Harry held their friendship in such low value that he couldn't be bother with sharing the secret with Ron.> I must disagree with you here. I feel that JKR has carefully made us aware that jealousy of others is an issue that Ron deals with. He hates being poor and he hates sharing everything with his siblings. He craves an opportunity to shine and feels cheated when he does not get it. This is not so obvious in SS, though we find out right away that he feels a bit neglected that his own mother can't remember what kind of sandwich he likes. In PoA Ron is clearly pleased to share his story about Sirius standing over him. He enjoys that everyone is interested in *him* for a change, instead of Harry. It is in GoF when his jealousy starts to really kick in. He is embarrassed on the Hogwarts Express when Draco makes fun of his dress robes and has trouble shaking it off for the the rest of the ride. To me that meant that one of the reasons Ron hates Draco is because Draco seems to have all the money in the world while the Weasleys have next to nothing. By the time Harry's name comes out of the Goblet, Ron is frustrated with always being seen as the sidekick and just one of the Weasleys. If he feels betrayed, it is because he is already jealous of Harry. Harry's parents left him a small fortune, Harry is an excellent Quidditch player, Harry's scar makes him forever famous... it is too much for Ron. He feels that Harry being chosen as champion is just one more thing that Harry can do; one more thing that Harry will be famous for. Ron is not the best at communicating his feelings, so instead of admitting that he is wildly jealous of Harry, he misplaces his anger and blames Harry for keeping a secret from him. It is not until much later in GoF when Ron finally says "I hate being poor!" It is a bit of a breakthrough for him, because until then, he often expressed himself by showing anger at others: why didn't Harry tell him about the leprechaun's gold, and so on. I'm curious to see how Ron will continue to handle his friendship with Harry in the next books. --jenny from ravenclaw From eloiseherisson at aol.com Fri Aug 16 14:14:24 2002 From: eloiseherisson at aol.com (eloiseherisson at aol.com) Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 10:14:24 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Voldemort Murders Message-ID: <137.12cecd4f.2a8e62c0@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 42750 Richelle: > This is interesting. What do the original U.S. and British editions say? I > have a later U.S. edition and it says "one more murder. . . my faithful > servant at Hogwarts." Does the uncorrected (for the priori incantatum > scene) U.S. edition say the same? If so, it may just be a U.S. > modification > so we silly Americans won't think Voldemort wants to call someone a bad > name. If the British was changed to murder it may have been an error. > Anybody have early and late editions to compare? > Eloise: I posted what the original UK edition said yesterday in response to Grey Wolf's question. The Stephen Fry audio book, which I believe is taken from a later edition, as (IIRC) the wand order in the graveyard is correct, is the same. The reading obviously makes so much more sense that to be honest I am surprised we're still debating it. mrflynn6: >As for the ancestor/descendent controversy. I am sure we will find >out that Voldermort is using a time turner or other form of time >travel. I just think that JKR put those "mistakes" in on purpose. >There isn't one little detail in any of the books that doesn't have a >purpose. Are you really arguing that she deliberately publishes different versions of the same book just to confuse us? Or that she changes her mind as she goes along? Or that the story is somehow elucidated by inconsistencies between versions? I agree that many details are crucial, but I also think that there are some (whole passages according to some!) that are not. There are also plain errors and examples of inconsistent editing between UK and US editions. Obviously, the fact that some of us who speak British English and use the phrase ourselves know what a 'deliberate error' is, is no match for the relentless campaign to read something into everything. Eloise Herisson Feeling spikey, as her name suggests. (Now there's an example of a name deliberately chosen for its etymology) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From speedygonzo242 at hotmail.com Fri Aug 16 16:21:49 2002 From: speedygonzo242 at hotmail.com (frankielee242) Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 16:21:49 -0000 Subject: Prof. Trelawney deserves credit! (but not much) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42751 jenny from ravenclaw wrote: > Anyone who can read people can make these > guesses. I can read my own students in this way; it doesn't make me > psychic. Which is what "psychics" do. They ask leading questions, extract a confession and then present it as a deduction. Showmanship (crystal balls, beautifully illustrated tarot decks, fringed shawls, spangly jewelry) is key, not accuracy. Trelawney's showmanship is superb, which is why Lavender was willing to suspend disbelief and apply the "Thing You Are Dreading" announcement to the accidental death of her baby rabbit, even though it actually happened a few days previously. Hermione was correct in pointing out that Lavender could not have been dreading the arrival of a letter from her parents concerning the demise of an otherwise healthy pet... BTW, the scene of the Christmas luncheon in PoA left me helpless in tears of laughter. Trelawney is great fun! =D Frankie, who mucked about with palmistry back in junior high school. From msiscusack at yahoo.com Fri Aug 16 14:14:31 2002 From: msiscusack at yahoo.com (Kristin Cusack) Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 07:14:31 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] When was Fudge made MoM (WAS: Re: Introducing a New Memory Charm) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020816141431.45906.qmail@web13107.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 42752 --- naamagatus wrote: > But, at the time of the Longbottoms' scandal Fudge > is Minister of > Magic. It never seemed right to me that he would be > the first on the > scene. Surely it's more reasonable to assume that it > was a lower > level MoM official who arrived first. It's not the > same as the Sirius > case, since at the time, Fudge wasn't the Minister > (we can gather > this from the fact that after Voldemort's fall, > Dumbledore was > asked to be Minister, and only after he refused, > Fudge got the job by > default). > > > Naama I didn't think that Fudge was the minister of magic at the time of the Longbottom torturing...because in PoA we are told that Bartemus Crouch Sr. was up for the job until his son was accused of that same crime and the job went to Fudge instead. I took this to mean that they were both up for the job around that time but Fudge was made MoM after the Longbottom torturing...after the accusation of Barty Jr. sa well. I'd assume that he was first on the scene because when it happened he still had his job as the head of magical law enforcement...same reason he was first to the scene at Sirius' alleged crime.(That was Fudge who said he was first there, wasn't it? no books!!) So, does anyone agree or disagree that Fudge was made MoM after the Longbottom scandal? Let me know. ~Kristin __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? HotJobs - Search Thousands of New Jobs http://www.hotjobs.com From gandharvika at hotmail.com Fri Aug 16 14:21:26 2002 From: gandharvika at hotmail.com (Gail Bohacek) Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 14:21:26 +0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Welcome Back Harry (Was - Re: Missing 24hrs - Mark) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42753 > > Marc said: > > about the 24 missing hrs: > > > > I am starting to reread SS, and when Harry goes to the Leaky > > Couldron for the first time, Tom says something to the effect > > of: > > > > "Welcome back Harry Potter, welcome back" or "Good to see you again". > > > > I guess his parents *could* have taken him by there when they were > > alive, but it's very curious that Tom knows and has seen Harry at > > his pub before. And I Say: I'm flipping through SS also; when Dumbledore meets McGonagall on Privet Drive, Dumbledore says to her; "Hagrid's late. I suppose it was he who told you I'd be here, by the way?" "Yes," said Professor McGonagall. So, where ever Hagrid went, he'd contacted with Prof. M. Just an observation... -Gail B. _________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com From rsteph1981 at yahoo.com Fri Aug 16 15:04:01 2002 From: rsteph1981 at yahoo.com (Rebecca Stephens) Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 08:04:01 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Magic and Law In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020816150401.2670.qmail@web20010.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 42754 --- bboy_mn wrote: > Magic and Law- > Why is it, when Harry performs magic away from > school, the Ministry of > Magic freaks out? Yet, Fred and George seem to be > performing magic > nonstop for the entire summer holiday. They spent > all their time in > their room cooking up magic inventions; most jokes > and tricks. So why > don't they get owls from the Ministry warning the > that they will be > expelled if they don't stop? Hardly seems fair. > > bboy_mn I was wondering if the twins don't get in trouble because they're not doing magic. What I mean is, most of what they do is probably achieved with potions. And so they're not doing magic, they're just putting magic ingredients in a cauldron and then using the result. After all, kids can't be in trouble for using magical implements and potions; if they were, they wouldn't be able to use a wizarding radio. Of course, they could be using charms instead of potions, and then this would make no sense at all. Rebecca ===== http://wychlaran.tripod.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? HotJobs - Search Thousands of New Jobs http://www.hotjobs.com From gandharvika at hotmail.com Fri Aug 16 15:16:16 2002 From: gandharvika at hotmail.com (Gail Bohacek) Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 15:16:16 +0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Prof. Trelawney deserves credit! Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42755 Jenny from Ravenclaw wrote: >I still don't see any of these things as real predictions or psychic >ability on Trelawney's part. If Trelawney knew, as I thought all of >the professors did (I could be wrong, as it isn't stated in PoA), that >Lupin is a werewolf, it is a very good guess that he won't last at >Hogwarts. That's being realistic, not psychic. We all know what a >hard time Lupin has had. And I Respond: Mayhaps I'm mistaken, but I thought that Prof. Snape was the only one who knew that Lupin was a werewolf? Jenny goes on: >As for her predictions about Harry, I have to once again say that >anyone can guess that Harry will be dealing with tough times. Someone >is always after him, whether it is Voldemort himself, the press (Rita >Skeeter) or the public (Colin Creevey). I also think Trelawney is >taking a cheap shot when she talks about his "troubled soul". Which >13 year old kid without parents doesn't have a troubled soul? Who >wouldn't feel troubled knowing that someone as big and bad as >Voldemort was after them? Anyone who can read people can make these >guesses. I can read my own students in this way; it doesn't make me >psychic. In an earlier post by "I don't know who" (because I was being 'delete-happy' last night in my Inbox) somebody made an good point that some-so-called psychics often phrase their words very vaguely, so that it could mean just about anything. I'm sure that's what Prof. Trelawney does. Prof. Trelawney has some psychic abilities, and I personally know people in real life who also are psychic, and it really is a hit-or-miss kind of thing. Kinda like playing the lottery. Because one can foresee possible outcomes of the future, but one's present actions can turn and change things around. It's an inexact science. The thing about Prof. Trelawney is her behavior is so annoying...she's almost all the things I hate about the New Age movement rolled up in one. In JKR's books, I see her as a walking, talking foreshadowing device to help throw out more red herrings. -Gail B. who is still waiting to see if anybody knows which year Harry was born...I thought I'd heard sometime in the '80's? _________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com From bdmorrp at budget.state.ny.us Fri Aug 16 17:22:03 2002 From: bdmorrp at budget.state.ny.us (erisedstraeh2002) Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 17:22:03 -0000 Subject: Silver or Silvery? (WAS: How Long Will Wormtail's New Hand Last?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42756 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "grey_wolf_c" wrote: > Since Voldemort is at the top with the very best, it's entirely > possible that the hand lasts a long time. Then again, it may not > have been conjured out of thin air at all: it may be a summon of > some sort of ghostly energy. Remember that it's not silver, it's > just silvery. So was the bird Dumbledore used to call Hagrid > previously in GoF. Whatever that material is, we don't know it's > properties or how easy it is to conjure, nor how much it lasts. Now me: OK, does this mean Scholastic is playing tricks on me again? My US GoF hardcover edition reads (p. 649, my emphases): "Voldemort raised his wand again and whirled it through the air. A streak of what looked like *molten silver* hung shining in the wand's wake." and Wormtail's "breathing harsh and ragged, he raised his head and stared in disbelief at the *silver* hand, now attached seamlessly to his arm, as through he were wearing a dazzling glove." Does the UK version say "silvery" instead of "silver" here? My version does concur on the Hagrid-summoning charm (p. 560): Dumbledore "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." I liked your idea that the hand would need to be re-conjured from time to time. I've heard other listies say that silver kills werewolves, so perhaps in a future book we'll see Wormtail raise his silver/silvery hand to kill Remus Lupin only to see the hand disappear before Wormtail can strike! This also got me thinking about why Wormtail couldn't just conjure (or re-conjure) his own new hand. It occurred to me that it's perhaps because Wormtail doesn't own his own wand. Wormtail uses Voldemort's wand to kill Cedric Diggory in the graveyard, and I can't think of any other time when there's a reference to Wormtail using his own wand (after he frames Sirius in the street in PoA, that is). ~Phyllis who is feeling "disruption in" her "comfortable and ordered world" (GoF, p. 707) that Scholastic changed "curse" to "murder" in Chapter 1 of GoF and had her convinced that Crouch Jr. had defied Voldemort's orders to murder Moody and, by extension, had her believing that Polyjuice Potion would work with the hair of a dead person From feliciarickmann at dsl.pipex.com Fri Aug 16 17:39:26 2002 From: feliciarickmann at dsl.pipex.com (feliciarickmann) Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 17:39:26 -0000 Subject: Mr Olivander's Opinion In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42757 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "grey_wolf_c" wrote: > Marc wrote: > > on a side note of wands: > > > > If the wand chooses the witch/wizard, why is Draco's mom picking out > > his wand for him when Harry meets him for the first time at the robe > > shop? > > > > Marc > > Thanks for finding that little canon! I've always tried to held the > theory that Olivander's idea of the "wand choosing the wizard" is just > the private theory of a strange old man who has spent his whole life > selling wands, but up till now there was nothing in which to base the > gut feeling. Now, I've got that to back me up. > > My theory goes that, although it *is* possible that some wands are > better suited to a person than others, it is nowhere as strong as > Olivanders thinks it is. This explains why any wand will serve any > wizard, even hand-me-downs like Ron gets (that is, until he breaks it). > And even if what Olivander thinks is correct (he's the expert, and all > that), most of the WW *do not* believe that, but think that any wand > will work, and buy according to other principles: how pretty it is, > what is good for (as in "good for charms") or, in the case of the > Malfoys, probably basing in the cost ("the most expensive one, please. > Oh, and throw in a gold box to keep it in so it doesn't loose the > shine"). > > Hope that helps, > > Grey Wolf, who probably didn't give you the answer you were looking for May we assume therefore that it was just the luck of the draw that Harry got the wand that was Voldemort's twin then, and that it is a coincidence that both are made out of wood associated in some form with death i.e. *Holly and Yew*, and that Lily Potter's wand was good for charm work and James's wand better for transfiguration by more arbitrary selection? Surely it would be better to suggest that all wands will work to a greater or lesser extent with all wizards BUT that the right wand in the right hands would perform over and above a wizard's expectations. An example *might* be Harry's Patronus in PoA. Harry, an exceptional wizard, is taught sophisticated magic supposedly beyond his years by Remus Lupin, and could perhaps have conjured up a Patronus with any old wand but, with his own wand, as selected by Mr Olivander, produces a spectacular Patronus that also brings him closer to his father, albeit briefly, and comprehensively vanquishes the Dementors. I think Mr Olivander has a point. Felicia From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Fri Aug 16 18:00:17 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 18:00:17 -0000 Subject: Prof. Trelawney deserves credit! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42758 Gail Bohacek wrote: > Mayhaps I'm mistaken, but I thought that Prof. Snape was the only one > who knew that Lupin was a werewolf? You *are* mistaken. To quote canon: (Sp. ed. PoA, ch. 17, lib. trans.) "They already know [that I'm a werewolf] -said Lupin-, At least, the teachers know." > In an earlier post by "I don't know who" (because I was being > 'delete-happy' last night in my Inbox) somebody made an good point > that some-so-called psychics often phrase their words very vaguely, > so that it could mean just about anything. I'm sure that's what > Prof. Trelawney does. Prof. Trelawney has some psychic abilities, > and I personally know people in real life who also are psychic, and > it really is a hit-or-miss kind of thing. Kinda like playing the > lottery. Because one can foresee possible outcomes of the future, but > one's present actions can turn and change things around. It's an > inexact science. In my opinion, it cannot even rank the position of "inexact science". Psychiatry is an inexact scince. Pretending to be able to read the future is nothing but flim-flam and make believe, from my (cientific) point of view. But even if it *was* a science, it has no place at Hogwarts, since the way Trelawny "sees" the future is non-magical. Just like potions are only chemistry if you don't throw magic in, using the ages-old "distract the gullible while I read him like a book to know what he wants to hear" form of divination cannot be considered a magical subject. I believe that Trelawny is a real diviner, since she's had two real prophecies but, unfortunately, she hasn't tried to develop that power (although it's not really her fault, since she doesn't remember those predictions). > -Gail B. who is still waiting to see if anybody knows which year > Harry was born...I thought I'd heard sometime in the '80's? 1980. Check the Lexicon for the full theory, but boiled down, it comes to: if Nick's death party is to be taken for truth, CoS takes place in 1992. Harry was born 12 years before that book, thus he was born in 1980. Hope that helps, Grey Wolf From huntleyl at mssm.org Fri Aug 16 17:55:31 2002 From: huntleyl at mssm.org (Laura Ingalls Huntley) Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 13:55:31 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Magic and Law References: <20020816150401.2670.qmail@web20010.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <004b01c2454e$1da4cb20$3dc3edd1@Huntley> No: HPFGUIDX 42759 > > --- bboy_mn wrote: > > Magic and Law- > > Why is it, when Harry performs magic away from > > school, the Ministry of > > Magic freaks out? Yet, Fred and George seem to be > > performing magic > > nonstop for the entire summer holiday. They spent > > all their time in > > their room cooking up magic inventions; most jokes > > and tricks. So why > > don't they get owls from the Ministry warning the > > that they will be > > expelled if they don't stop? Hardly seems fair. Well, I think that law is something like the don't-tape-rented-movies law here in the US...or the Speed Limit. People do it all the time, and they don't get in trouble unless they're caught (which is pretty rare). And, IMO, the reason why Harry gets caught, while the twins don't, is that Privet Drive is closely monitored for any magical disturbance (or something like this). For Harry's *safety*, of course, but it works just as well for catching him in the act of doing illegal spells. Perhaps this is something connected to the "old magic" or Arabella Figg. At any rate, it explains why Lily could do the magic Petunia said she did when she came home on holidays...there was no way she'd be caught. Now, I'm not saying Lily was a rampant law-breaker...but think about it, what decent, law-abiding citizen *doesn't* break laws like the Speed Limit every now and then? laura From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Fri Aug 16 18:21:23 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 18:21:23 -0000 Subject: Silver or Silvery? (WAS: How Long Will Wormtail's New Hand Last?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42760 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "erisedstraeh2002" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "grey_wolf_c" wrote: > > > Since Voldemort is at the top with the very best, it's entirely > > possible that the hand lasts a long time. Then again, it may not > > have been conjured out of thin air at all: it may be a summon of > > some sort of ghostly energy. Remember that it's not silver, it's > > just silvery. So was the bird Dumbledore used to call Hagrid > > previously in GoF. Whatever that material is, we don't know it's > > properties or how easy it is to conjure, nor how much it lasts. > > Now me: > > OK, does this mean Scholastic is playing tricks on me again? My US > GoF hardcover edition reads (p. 649, my emphases): "Voldemort raised > his wand again and whirled it through the air. A streak of what > looked like *molten silver* hung shining in the wand's wake." and > Wormtail's "breathing harsh and ragged, he raised his head and stared > in disbelief at the *silver* hand, now attached seamlessly to his > arm, as through he were wearing a dazzling glove." Does the UK > version say "silvery" instead of "silver" here? I couldn't say. I haven't got the UK edition either, after all. I must admit I'm using hearsay here. The last time I participated in the "silver hand" debate, a fellow listee pointed out that, in fact, we are never told that the hand is made form silver, only that it has a silver shine. My own edition in my own language identifies the hand first as silver and then as silvery, though, so it doesn't help. I never actually asked about the original, but I'm correcting that right now. All you Brits, I need your original editions once more. Sorry for bothering you once again, and thanks! At any rate, there is no canon that the werwolves in Potterverse are affected by silver. Although it's a general sort of affliction for werewolves, the weak points of those sort of creatures changes widely from book to book. For example, most of the werewoves I've read about are *not* affected by wolvesbane (a plant), but traditionally it's either death for a werewolf, or what changes you into one to begin with. To give weight to the "silver doesn't harm werewolves in Potterverse" theory, just point out that sickles are made of silver, and I don't think that Lupin is incapable of accepting change when buying something (although that would explain why he's so poor: everything he buys has to be rounded up to the next galleon, unless he happens to carry enough knuts). > I liked your idea that the hand would need to be re-conjured from > time to time. I've heard other listies say that silver kills > werewolves, so perhaps in a future book we'll see Wormtail raise his > silver/silvery hand to kill Remus Lupin only to see the hand > disappear before Wormtail can strike! > > This also got me thinking about why Wormtail couldn't just conjure > (or re-conjure) his own new hand. It occurred to me that it's > perhaps because Wormtail doesn't own his own wand. Wormtail uses > Voldemort's wand to kill Cedric Diggory in the graveyard, and I can't > think of any other time when there's a reference to Wormtail using > his own wand (after he frames Sirius in the street in PoA, that is). > > ~Phyllis Of course, maybe he just plain isn't strong enough, and the fact that when he hasn't got the hand he's squirming on the ground in pain shouldn't make things any easier for him to cast it. Hope that helps, Grey Wolf From catherine at cator-manor.demon.co.uk Fri Aug 16 17:54:19 2002 From: catherine at cator-manor.demon.co.uk (Catherine Coleman) Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 18:54:19 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] The Old Crowd (was Molly and Arthur's past) In-Reply-To: <01b101c244c4$a18f5840$459fcdd1@istu757> References: <01b101c244c4$a18f5840$459fcdd1@istu757> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42761 In message <01b101c244c4$a18f5840$459fcdd1 at istu757>, Richelle Votaw writes >I think that Arthur may have been a part of the old crowd, but not >Molly. >During the reign of Voldemort, Molly was busy raising babies.? I >picture her >as a "stay at home" witch, keeping her own family safe while her >husband >went out to fight in the war.? Dumbledore asked Molly if he could count >on >her and Arthur.? It's possible that if Arthur had been there he >wouldn've >had to ask.? Also, there's the "Voldemort" or "You Know Who."? Arthur >says >You Know Who, while the old crowd (as far as we know) says Voldemort.? >But >that could be because Molly freaked out if he said Voldemort, and he'd >have >gotten used to saying You Know Who. > >Just my two cents on the matter.? Feel free to add to my very short >list of >"old crowd" members! > >Richelle Nice theory about the Old Crowd, and the way in which they refer to Voldemort. I don't, however, think that Arthur can be included in this particular classification, based upon how he refers to Voldemort. Just quite by chance today, when I was listening to PoA, I heard the following: "Mr Weasley flinched at the sound of the name, but overlooked it." (PoA, The Dementor). Excluding Arthur Weasley from this, for a moment, one could go further when talking about Forms of Reference - it's more to do with attitude. The Old Crowd (or at least Lupin) obviously take Dumbledore's view on calling things by their proper names - but they also don't seem to have the same fear of Voldemort as other people do. Fear yes, but a fear more grounded in reality than that of legend, which is how many other people seem to view him. Catherine From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Fri Aug 16 18:41:03 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 18:41:03 -0000 Subject: Mr Olivander's Opinion In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42762 > Felicia wrote: > May we assume therefore that it was just the luck of the draw that > Harry got the wand that was Voldemort's twin then, and that it is a > coincidence that both are made out of wood associated in some form > with death i.e. *Holly and Yew*, and that Lily Potter's wand was good > for charm work and James's wand better for transfiguration by more > arbitrary selection? > > Surely it would be better to suggest that all wands will work to a > greater or lesser extent with all wizards BUT that the right wand in > the right hands would perform over and above a wizard's expectations. > > I think Mr Olivander has a point. > > Felicia I never said that ther aren't better suited wands for every person. What I'm saying is that wands *do not* have the intelligence to choose the wizard they are going to be bought by. Someone used an example with a violinist and violins, but he didn't suggest that when the violinist went into the music shop the violin chose him, instead of him choosing the violin that suited him best. We've seen more than our share of intelligent objects in Potterverse in these four books, and the wands are *not* as intelligent as the map or the diary, at least not intelligent enough to choose. If you had taken some time to read through my post, you may had noted that none of the above arguments contradict it: I agree that some wands are better suitedfor some people and that they are better suited for some sorts of magic. The only things that I believe in are that the wands *don't* have that magical brain Arthur dislikes so much and that when Olivader *says* that the wand selects the wizard, it is either a figure of speech, or a strange theory of a strange man which is not exactly true. The trouble is that that sort of figure of speech is easily missinterpreted, especially in a world where cars can fly and live wild in a forest, maps answer back to people and diaries control the reader's mind. Hope that helps, Grey Wolf From naama_gat at hotmail.com Fri Aug 16 18:45:48 2002 From: naama_gat at hotmail.com (naamagatus) Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 18:45:48 -0000 Subject: Arabella Figg and the Polyjuice Potion (no Latin!) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42763 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., eloiseherisson at a... wrote: > The idea that Arabella is polyjuiced came out of someone's observation that her house smells of cabbages and that we learn in COS that this is the smell (taste? A child has the book at the moment) of Polyjuice. One of those details that Must Be Significant. (Sorry, I can't credit the observant listie who noticed this.) > > I myself brought up the fact that there must be a hair donor somewhere and envisage an elderly and by now rather bald witch (Arabella's mother or aunt, or Dumbledore's sister, perhaps?) who willingly gives her hairs for the potion. I don't think she's got a little old lady captive in the back bedroom! (Although that would >give Arabella a bit of 'Edge', come to think of it!) > > It could of sourse, be an aging spell/potion. But we then have less canonical justification for the theory. We could say that there has to be some reason why we were introduced to the concept in GOF, but we have no specific connection to Mrs Figg, whilst the smell of cabbages relates both to Mrs Figg *and* to a potion we know can be >used to alter appearances. > The apothecary shop at Diagon Alley is also described as smelling of cabbage (rotted cabbage, to be exact). I've always thought of the cabbage smell motif as another example of JKR's rather limited choice of descriptors (like the twinkling eyes, the twisted smile or Harry's excitable stomach). She probably dislikes the smell of cooked cabbage very much, so when she wants to describe an unpleasant smell, up it pops again. Aside from that, I have a question: why is it necessary for Arabella Figg, the attractive young witch, to appear as an old woman in order to keep watch over Harry? (I'm sure it's been explained in depth in some TBAY message, but I haven't always been able to follow each and every thread.) Naama, who sometimes feels that she IS Occam's Razor :-) From catherine at cator-manor.demon.co.uk Fri Aug 16 18:51:38 2002 From: catherine at cator-manor.demon.co.uk (Catherine Coleman) Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 19:51:38 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Magic and Law In-Reply-To: <004b01c2454e$1da4cb20$3dc3edd1@Huntley> References: <20020816150401.2670.qmail@web20010.mail.yahoo.com> <004b01c2454e$1da4cb20$3dc3edd1@Huntley> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42764 In message <004b01c2454e$1da4cb20$3dc3edd1 at Huntley>, Laura Ingalls Huntley writes >> >> --- bboy_mn wrote: >> > Magic and Law- >> > Why is it, when Harry performs magic away from >> > school, the Ministry of >> > Magic freaks out? Yet, Fred and George seem to be >> > performing magic >> > nonstop for the entire summer holiday. They spent >> > all their time in >> > their room cooking up magic inventions; most jokes >> > and tricks. So why >> > don't they get owls from the Ministry warning the >> > that they will be >> > expelled if they don't stop? Hardly seems fair. > >Well, I think that law is something like the don't-tape-rented-movies >law >here in the US...or the Speed Limit.? People do it all the time, and >they >don't get in trouble unless they're caught (which is pretty rare).? >And, >IMO, the reason why Harry gets caught, while the twins don't, is that >Privet >Drive is closely monitored for any magical disturbance (or something >like >this).? For Harry's *safety*, of course, but it works just as well for >catching him in the act of doing illegal spells. Perhaps this is >something >connected to the "old magic" or Arabella Figg. My theory is that Fred and George are doing magic in a magical household - and whatever detection devices for illegal magic exist, can only detect general area. So they wouldn't be able to distinguish from Mrs Weasley doing magic, and Fred and George doing magic. However, there's another point about why Harry was caught out when he did. Dispensing with the blowing up of Aunt Marge firstly, at the time, Sirius Black had just escaped from Azkaban and a very close eye was probably being kept on Harry. Things were slightly different in CoS with Dobby. I've always been sceptical about the MoM knowing automatically that Harry had performed magic. I always thought that Dobby had immediately reported the hover charm immediately after he disapparated. The letter from Mafalda Hopkirk says, "We have received intelligence that..." This leaves things open, IMO. Although it is perfectly possible that Harry is monitored at all times (I would expect that the MoM would want to know if anyone else was performing magic anywhere in the vicinity and would have some kind of magic radar thing), I never thought that the knowledge would be detailed enough to know that it was a Hover Charm that was performed. I always thought that if Harry was monitored that closely, then everyone would know how appallingly he was treated, and do something about it. They would also know, for instance, that he hadn't been told of his background and his magical ability. Catherine From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Fri Aug 16 19:05:11 2002 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (bboy_mn) Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 19:05:11 -0000 Subject: Mr Olivander's Opinion In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42765 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "grey_wolf_c" wrote: > > Felicia wrote: < < May we assume therefore that it was just the luck of the draw that Harry got the wand that was Voldemort's twin then, and that it is a coincidence that both are made out of wood associated in some form with death i.e. *Holly and Yew*, and that Lily Potter's wand was good for charm work and James's wand better for transfiguration by more arbitrary selection? Surely it would be better to suggest that all wands will work to a greater or lesser extent with all wizards BUT that the right wand in the right hands would perform over and above a wizard's expectations. I think Mr Olivander has a point. > > Felicia < < > Grey Wolf (cool name) Replied: < I never said that ther aren't better suited wands for every person. What I'm saying is that wands *do not* have the intelligence to choose the wizard they are going to be bought by. Someone used an example with a violinist and violins, but he didn't suggest that when the violinist went into the music shop the violin chose him, instead of him choosing the violin that suited him best. We've seen more than our share of intelligent objects in Potterverse in these four books, and the wands are *not* as intelligent as the map or the diary, at least not intelligent enough to choose. If you had taken some time to read through my post, you may had noted that none of the above arguments contradict it: I agree that some wands are better suitedfor some people and that they are better suited for some sorts of magic. The only things that I believe in are that the wands *don't* have that magical brain Arthur dislikes so much and that when Olivader *says* that the wand selects the wizard, it is either a figure of speech, or a strange theory of a strange man which is not exactly true. The trouble is that that sort of figure of speech is easily missinterpreted, especially in a world where cars can fly and live wild in a forest, maps answer back to people and diaries control the reader's mind. Hope that helps, > Grey Wolf < bboy_mn throws in some more thoughts" Hi, I'm the guy who used the violin/violinist example. I agree with the phrase, 'the wand chooses the wizard' as a figure of speech; but I also agree with Grey Wolf when he says that the choosing of the wizard is not done in an intelligent way. It is, as I suggested, a harmony or magical resonance that the wand and wizard share. The wands done sit around after a student has left the shop saying, 'I didn't like that kid, he had shifty eyes' or 'no, he was OK, but I prefer a wizard who's taller'. While wands may have some inherent magical smartness, they are not intelligent objects in a 'thinking' sort of way. Just thought I would throw that in. bboy_mn From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Fri Aug 16 19:21:36 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 19:21:36 -0000 Subject: Arabella Figg and the Polyjuice Potion (no Latin!) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42766 Naama wrote: > Aside from that, I have a question: why is it necessary for Arabella > Figg, the attractive young witch, to appear as an old woman in order > to keep watch over Harry? (I'm sure it's been explained in depth in > some TBAY message, but I haven't always been able to follow each and > every thread.) > > > Naama, who sometimes feels that she IS Occam's Razor :-) I don't personally believe that particular theory, but -allowing to the supposition that it *is* true- if Arabella was shapely and young, AND a girlfriend to Sirius, she must have attended the Potter's wedding, and so must the Dursleys.I assume that they (Dumbledore and co.) didn't want the chance that the Dursleys identified her as a witch friend of the Potters. Of course, an old lady is always more unremarkable than a shapely young witch. Just picture it: she needed to gain the Dursleys confidence. Knowing Petunia, would you approach them looking like a Haliwell [Charmed Ones reference], or like an old crone? While the first will only ask for jelousy, the second will accepted and mostly ignored. Old people normally are seen walking around aimlessly, which helps when keeping an eye on Harry, and are always free to take in a child for a day, which makes her useful to the Dursleys. And, she can have lots of cats to help her with the vigilance. Although I believe that Figg was picked *because* she already had these qualities (I picture her as an old school firend of McGonagall), it works exactly the same with a Polyjuiced!Figg. Hope that helps, Grey Wolf, who, in this case is with Naama and William of Occam, although he feels that if William had been faced with the Potterverse, he would've grown a beard. From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Fri Aug 16 19:32:32 2002 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (bboy_mn) Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 19:32:32 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's OLD CROWD Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42767 I'm starting a new thread on this subject because my comments aren't necessarily directly related to anyone's specific posts. I think we might be asking the wrong question. In a sense, we have been asking 'who' are the old crowd. Maybe we should be asking 'what' are the old crowd. That's probably a subtle distinction that exists only in my addled mind. We seem to be trying to decide who is and who isn't a member of 'the old crowd', but maybe we should first decide what the old crowd is. By that I mean, are these all of Dumbledore old and personal friends? Are these specifically all the 'soliders' who fought along side him in the previous Voldemort war? Are these people part of some long term social group that Dumbledore is involved in? My personal take is that he is referring to, gathering together all the people who worked with him (Dumbledore) during the previous Voldemort war. These are the most experience and knowledgable people when it comes to Voldemort, and also, people who have over a period of many years proven their loyalty and ability. As far as asking Molly if he can count on her and Aurther, I think people are reading too much into that. First, the rest of the people in the room are all young and single, while Molly is older, married, and has a lot of personal responsibilities being the mother of 7 kids. Plus Arthur works for the Ministry of Magic, asking him to help given the conversation that just took place, is asking him to actively work against his boss and the head of the wizard's government. I think the subtext of what Dumbledore says is really, 'Molly, I know I can count on you, but if you feel you need to keep a low profile on this one, I'll understand'. I think Dumbledore has absolute faith in the loyalty and support of Mr. and Mrs. Weasley, especially when you consider how close they have become to Harry. The real question is how overtly or covertly are the Weasley's willing to work with Dumbledore. Afterall, Dumbledore is in essences asking Arthur to go back to the Ministry and rally support AGAINST the Minister of Magic. Just some thoughts on the subject. bboy_mn From kkearney at students.miami.edu Fri Aug 16 19:36:04 2002 From: kkearney at students.miami.edu (corinthum) Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 19:36:04 -0000 Subject: Arabella Figg and Polyjuice/Arthur and Molly's past In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42768 ARABELLA FIGG Naama wrote: > Aside from that, I have a question: why is it necessary for Arabella > Figg, the attractive young witch, to appear as an old woman in order > to keep watch over Harry? (I'm sure it's been explained in depth in > some TBAY message, but I haven't always been able to follow each and > every thread.) Me: Perhaps she felt an old lady would attract less attention. An old lady who keeps herself cooped up inside her house with cats may seem a bit strange, but not that uncommon. Besides an occasional reference to "crazy old Mrs.Figg down the street", I wouldn't think neighbors would gossip much about her. On the other hand, the young, attractive girl who just moved in down the street but rarely goes out and doesn't seem to have any friends would be cause for gossip. Also, I think the Dursleys would be more willing to leave Harry with an old woman who cares only for her cats than with someone who may actually start showing interest in his life. What if he told her about the strange things he could do? The horror! :) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ARTHUR AND MOLLY'S PAST I just thought of another bit of support for my "Arthur and Molly are not old crowd members" theory. I was about to ask why we assume Arabella is not actually old. I always have simply so she would be a contemporary of Sirius, Lupin, James, and Lily. Taking this into consideration, it seems Dumbledore assembled a very young group to fight Voldemort. Why? Perhaps he felt that with all the Imperius curses going around, he couldn't trust anyone who had previous experience. This would include MoM employee Arthur. Why assemble a group a young, just-graduated wizards, and then throw Arthur and Molly into the mix? They simply don't fit. -Corinth, who is going to be extremely nitpicky and request that people quote me using this name, not my e-mail address or yahoo id, to which I added -UM only because Corinth was taken. Thanks. :) From fyredriftwood at yahoo.com Fri Aug 16 16:49:35 2002 From: fyredriftwood at yahoo.com (fyredriftwood) Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 16:49:35 -0000 Subject: Forms of Reference for Voldie: WAS The Old Crowd (was Molly and Arthur's past) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42769 arcum wrote: > Remus refers to Voldemort as "Lord Voldemort", as does Quirrell, > Diary!Tom Riddle, and Dumbledore. Sirus Black says Voldemort, and > Moody says both "Voldemort" and "the Dark Lord". Fudge usually says > "You-know-who", but does say "Lord Voldemort" once in GoF. Peter > Pettigrew also alternates between "He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named"[1] and > "Voldemort"... Lucius Malfoy refers to Voldemort as the Dark Lord, as does Draco I believe. Harry, like Pettigrew, alternates between You-know-Who and Voldemort--depending on who he is around at the time. There's something still skeptical about Fudge. His non believing about Voldemort's return leads me to believe that he's either a closet Voldemort supporter, or perhaps scared out of his mind and would be bad for the wizarding world if that were to occur. So we know then that Black, Lupin, Figg, and Dumbledore are part of the "old crowd." If Harry does what he normally does in every book, is it possible he'll become part of the "old crowd" as well? acrum also wrote: > [1] I originally accidentally typed "He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Naked" here, > and it still seems appropriate... What are you talking about?! Voldy looks the best in the nude.. didn't you see him in a copy of "Snitch Studs" the other day surrounded by other hotties with Snitches cleverly placed? --Fyre Wood, who now trecks off to Taco Bell for a five hour drive thru shift. >:( From brian042 at hotmail.com Fri Aug 16 17:54:25 2002 From: brian042 at hotmail.com (bkb042) Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 17:54:25 -0000 Subject: Missing 24 hours Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42770 Another thought on the missing 24 hours. After hearing that someone had actually SURVIVED being AK'd (and an infant no less), I should think that the Committee on Experimental Charms would show some interest. I think that Hagrid was told to take Harry to the Weasley's and pick him up after dark the next day. Arthur then took Harry to the wizarding equivalent of Area 51 to be examined. Once inside the secret lab, they could take as much time as they wanted trying to figure out how he survived(They're the ones with the time-turners, after all). Once they were done, Arthur took Harry back to The Burrow, Molly sent the other kids to bed, changed his nappies right next to Ron and Ginny, gave him a bottle, and waited for Hagrid. I'm glad we got that cleared up, and I shall remain smug about my clever theory for about the next ten minutes or so. brian042 From jodel at aol.com Fri Aug 16 18:29:48 2002 From: jodel at aol.com (jodel at aol.com) Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 14:29:48 EDT Subject: Wizarding elementary education Message-ID: <108.1673ef90.2a8e9e9c@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 42771 bboy_m writes; >>So in terms of functioning at Horwards, Ron's education may be adequate, but I suspect he would be completely under educated by normal muggle school standards. Certainly, lacking basic muggle European history, basic science, geography, social studies, etc...<< I'm pretty sure that wizards are taught geography, although their version may be a bit skewed. The same would probably go for a number of other subjects. In fact they might even get a good deal of British or world history in primary school in order to give them a context to compare with their later courses in history of Magic. It isn't likely that this follows Muggle history much beyond the point at which the WW secluded itself, however. Which was late 17th century. The impression given from the books and confirmed by Rowling's interviews is that magical abilities develop at different speeds for different individuals. Which is why magical education is not begun until the age of 11, by which time it is clear to all as to who is a wizard and who is not. I suspect that some of the children who develop early and are educated at home may be fitted for wands and already doing supervised magical training anything up to a year or more bvefore they actually start Hogwarts. (Which would explain how Snape could have already have had that impresive arsenal of curses to draw upon as a mere first year.) As to where wizarding children are educated, if they are not home schooled (which one assumes that the children of wealthy pureblood families probably are) or sent to Muggle schools (any child of mixed blood and a few plebian purebloods who live in Muggle towns), my own theory -- which is probably not unique -- is that there are a half dozen or a dozen or so small private wizarding primary schools scattered around Great Britan and that the children travel to them over the Floo network. -JOdel From kristilynn5 at yahoo.com Fri Aug 16 19:31:36 2002 From: kristilynn5 at yahoo.com (Kristi Smith) Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 12:31:36 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Hermione's other friends In-Reply-To: <134.12eee0b9.2a8d9d96@aol.com> Message-ID: <20020816193136.51598.qmail@web40310.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 42772 JOdel wrote: After all, she can say with conviction that Mandy Brocklehurst is *really nice* (and that her acne is getting better). And she even halfway tries tries to fix Mandy up with Ron. (At least at the beginning of the year.) -JOdel I was under the impression that it was Eloise Smidgen with the acne problem, but otoh she was petrified with Penelope Clearwater-- a Ravenclaw. So Hermione may have friends who are girls from other houses, we just don't know about them. Kristi From btk6y at virginia.edu Fri Aug 16 19:58:46 2002 From: btk6y at virginia.edu (btk6y) Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 19:58:46 -0000 Subject: Will Seamus be the traitor? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42773 Hey, thought I'd bring up something I'd been mulling over for a while. There's obviously a lot of theories about whether Ron will betray Harry or not. What if Seamus becomes the traitor? When Seamus Finnegan is about to be sorted in SS, the Sorting Hat took a long time to figure him out. We know that the Hat took a long time to sort Neville and I figure that's because he may have borderline bravery (i.e. does he actually belong in Hufflepuff, he is good at Herbology, etc). Where do you think the Sorting Hat was thinking about putting Seamus instead of Gryffindor? Any of the other houses is a possibility, but my hunch is that the Hat was thinking about putting him in Slytherin. The reason for this is that I believe JKR put that in for a specific reason which will be revealed in time; I don't believe that there would be any big story if the Sorting Hat was deciding between Gryffindor and Hufflepuff or Ravenclaw. However, my hunch is that the Sorting Hat was choosing between Gryffindor and Slytherin, ended up putting Seamus in Gryffindor, but he will eventually end up betraying Gryffindor and Harry at some point. No other cannon evidence at all to support this except the fact that the Sorting Hat took a while to sort him, but I just don't see why JKR would include that tidbit if it wouldn't be important later- and I don't see why it would be important if the Hat was deciding vs. Hufflepuff or Ravenclaw. Any thoughts? From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Fri Aug 16 20:10:04 2002 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (bboy_mn) Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 20:10:04 -0000 Subject: US Insanity and Translations Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42774 A while back, I start a thread about how stupid I thought it was to translate people surnames when translating the book into other languages. The worst example was Professor DUMBledore being changed to Professor Silencio in Italian. My name is my name regardless of where I am in the world. But some people debate that opinion. NOW however, in recent posts, an even more insane translation has come to light. This insanity is compounded by the fact that the translation is from English to English; British English to American English. OK, they changed 'jumper' to 'sweater' and change 'meters' to 'feet' (I assume). That's seems reasonable, but it has come to light that in chapter 1 of GoF, that 'curse' was changed to 'murder', and in the letter Sirius wrote to Harry explaining that it was Sirius that sent Harry the Firebolt, the vault number was taken out (vault 711, I believe). What kind of insanity is this? How much more of this is there that we haven't discovered yet, that has corrupted the accuracy of the story? Do they (who ever these idiots are) believe that we Americans are too stupid to figure out for ourselves the implicatoins of the word 'curse'? Are we so mentally inferior that we can't let our delicate minds be befuddled with icky nasty numbers like 'vault 711'? Who are these idiots who have decided they know more about this story than Rowlings does? Rowlings seems to have research everything about Harry Potter down to the smallest detail, and it is very rare to come across a specific reference that doesn't have some important meaning to the story. In fact, the minute level of meticulous detail in these books is astounding. Beyond what I would have expected or imagined that any author would do. What idiot editor took it upon himself to decide that there is no significants to that vault number? Despite all I have said, I'm dumbfounded. I am in stunned disbelief that any editor or published felt they could take it upon themselves to actually change the functional content of the book. I have to wonder if Rowlings has ever read the American version of her book. And I have to wonder if she would ever (certainly not in my opinion) approve these changes? bboy_mn From yrawen at ontheqt.org Fri Aug 16 20:28:44 2002 From: yrawen at ontheqt.org (yr awen) Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 16:28:44 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] US Insanity and Translations References: Message-ID: <005201c24563$8540f1e0$badef718@kzo.chartermi.net> No: HPFGUIDX 42775 bb_boy said: NOW however, in recent posts, an even more insane translation has come to light. This insanity is compounded by the fact that the translation is from English to English; British English to American English.<<<<< Ahh, thank you I've been wondering that myself. I can, as you do, definitely understand changes in some terminology (jumpers for sweaters and that sort of thing.) What really gets me, though, is that the publishers felt it necessary to change the title of 'Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone' to 'Harry Potter and the Sorceror's Stone.' Argh! Was the first not catchy enough? Maybe it's my snotty closet Anglophile side coming out, but changing the title -- and thus the name of a fairly well-known, if legendary, alchemical stubstance -- reeks of commercialism. Which, I guess, was the whole point, but *still.* Did they think Americans would somehow mistake a children's fantasy story for philosophical dialectic? Huff. HF. -- www.ontheqt.org eth.pitas.com Habent sua fata libelli. /Books have their own destiny.\ + terentianus maurus + [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Fri Aug 16 20:27:55 2002 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (bboy_mn) Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 20:27:55 -0000 Subject: Missing 24 hours In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42776 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "bkb042" wrote: > Another thought on the missing 24 hours. After hearing that > someone had actually SURVIVED being AK'd (and an infant no less), I > should think that the Committee on Experimental Charms would show > some interest. > > I think that Hagrid was told to take Harry to the Weasley's and > pick him up after dark the next day. Arthur then took Harry to the > wizarding equivalent of Area 51 to be examined. Once inside the > secret lab, they could take as much time as they wanted trying to > figure out how he survived(They're the ones with the time-turners, > after all). > > Once they were done, Arthur took Harry back to The Burrow, Molly > sent the other kids to bed, changed his nappies right next to Ron > and Ginny, gave him a bottle, and waited for Hagrid. > > I'm glad we got that cleared up, and I shall remain smug about my > clever theory for about the next ten minutes or so. > > brian042 Just one thing missing Brian, although, I do like the 'Area 51' idea, Hagrid specifically mentions Bristol which is West of the Burrow while London/Surrey is East of the Burrow. Fit Bristol into you theory and you might be on to something. Your idea that Harry may have been taking to some magic investigation outpost, to examine a person involved in a once in the entire history of the world magical event, seems very reasonable now that you've brought if up. If the magical outpost, hereafter to be known as 'Magical Area 51', is in southern Wales, then you are home free. Cool idea, and the more I think about it, the more I like it. bboy_mn From yrawen at ontheqt.org Fri Aug 16 20:41:45 2002 From: yrawen at ontheqt.org (yr awen) Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 16:41:45 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Will Seamus be the traitor? References: Message-ID: <005d01c24565$56563960$badef718@kzo.chartermi.net> No: HPFGUIDX 42777 btk6y said: Hey, thought I'd bring up something I'd been mulling over for a while. There's obviously a lot of theories about whether Ron will betray Harry or not. What if Seamus becomes the traitor?<<<<<< I honestly don't think so, unless there's a *lot* of development in Seamus' character through the next three books. We simply don't know much about him at all, other than that he's a rabid Irish National fan in GoF and manages to blow things up in PS/SS. Also, the Hat does take its time figuring out where to put Harry, who also has the option of going into Slytherin, and Rowlings clarifies that the Hat decides with some people right away, while it seems to take a long time with others. My thought is that the Hat has a very difficult task, having to weed through a lot of potentially contradictory information with a lot of students. People like Draco and Ron seem to be fairly easy, especially if they have a long family history in a particular House or have very pronounced characteristics. It may be difficult with some students, such as Neville or Seamus, for the Hat to figure out where they truly belong. Neville, as you said, ostensibly belongs in Hufflepuff, but he displays his courage in standing up against his own friends (and even routinely suffering through the hell of persecution in Potions might be enough to qualify one for being brave at heart.) Some students might fit into a couple different houses, at least on the surface -- for example, Hermione strikes me as being far more likely to be a Ravenclaw, until she displays her penchant for daring and rule-breaking -- and the Hat has to dig around and eventually make a judgment call. Additionally, I'm not entirely sure why there *has* to be a traitor in the first place. It provides symmetry, I suppose, with Pettigrew's betrayal of the Potters, but still... maybe we're all a bit too wrapped up in our suspicion-slash-Judas complex and our 'need' to have someone be the token turncoat. Given the story so far, there's no clear traitor in Harry's midst, at least among the Gryffindors, only our febrile speculation as to possible motivation and opportunity, much of which has a considerable amount of contradictory evidence (esp. in the case of Ron.) Further, it may be possible that any 'betrayal' might be completely inadvertent or be forced, eg. someone being placed under Imperius, being blackmailed, or maybe accidentally leaving a piece of crucial information out in the open, not deliberate, as it apparently was with Pettigrew. HF. -- www.ontheqt.org eth.pitas.com Habent sua fata libelli. /Books have their own destiny.\ + terentianus maurus + [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From yrawen at ontheqt.org Fri Aug 16 20:43:52 2002 From: yrawen at ontheqt.org (yr awen) Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 16:43:52 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Arabella Figg and Polyjuice/Arthur and Molly's past References: Message-ID: <006501c24565$a1997f40$badef718@kzo.chartermi.net> No: HPFGUIDX 42778 Corinth said: I just thought of another bit of support for my "Arthur and Molly are not old crowd members" theory. I was about to ask why we assume Arabella is not actually old. I always have simply so she would be a contemporary of Sirius, Lupin, James, and Lily. Taking this into consideration, it seems Dumbledore assembled a very young group to fight Voldemort. <<<<<<<< I think you're omitting someone who may end up being important -- Mundungus Fletcher, who is described by Arthur himself as being "old Mundungus Fletcher", is one of the 'old crowd.' The impression I got from Dumbledore's words is that the old crowd isn't a highly, highly exclusive group of people, but rather those who are the most dedicated to stopping Voldemort. The people Dumbledore wants to summon, furthermore, seem to be a group of outsiders (we know how Lupin feels about the threat of Voldemort, but not Figg -- although we have good conjectures -- or Fletcher), and thus untainted by Ministry politicking. Corinth: Why? Perhaps he felt that with all the Imperius curses going around, he couldn't trust anyone who had previous experience. This would include MoM employee Arthur. Why assemble a group a young, just-graduated wizards, and then throw Arthur and Molly into the mix? They simply don't fit. <<<<<<<<< Are you referring to the first confrontation with Voldemort, or the second? I'm sorry, but I'm not clear on that :-) I'm guessing you're meaning that, in the first battle, Dumbledore needed the 'rookies' (so to speak), while older wizards/witches -- eg McGonagall, Arthur -- could possibly be corrupted or influenced due to their being more well-known, or being thought of as a more logical target for the Dark side. But then, I could be completely off-base. In GoF, Dumbledore doesn't seem to be setting up a full-frontal assault against Voldemort, at least, not yet. He is, however, explicit that Arthur needs to begin working right away in order to convince people in the Ministry not to share Fudge's attitude. Additionally, the in-gathering of the 'old crowd' may be limited to just Lupin, Sirius, Arabella, and Mundungus, but the structure of Dumbledore's request leaves that in doubt; he is either saying that the above four (plus himself) are the totality of the old crowd, or is assuming that by telling Sirius just a few names he'll know who else to contact. Hagrid, for example, may be a member of the old crowd, but is being sent off to rally the giants to Dumbledore's side; Arthur may be a member of the old crowd, but he has to play the role of insider in attempting to influence Ministry opinion. Secondly, in an earlier post it was mentioned by someone, I can't remember who, that Molly's reactions to Sirius Black and her obvious, yet suppressed, fear when Dumbledore asks if he can count on her, indicate she and/or Arthur is/are not a member/s of the 'old crowd' or a trusted cadre of Dumbledoreian soldiers. I honestly can't agree with that, at least, as a piece of evidence. She has a very large family and a *lot* to lose in the coming war, and I think it takes a lot of courage to place herself and her children in danger. There, too, is always the presence of the "mortal peril" location on the Weasley family clock -- for me, that has unexpectedly dark overtones in a descriptive passage that is otherwise light-hearted. Dumbledore probably recognizes this, and wants to find a way to say he *knows* she and Arthur will help him out without actually stating it as such. Of course, I think the difficulty in figuring out who the 'old crowd' is is complicated by Dumbledore's vagueness and the fact that, outside of a few key conflicts, not much is known about everyday life during the first war, or the lesser struggles that took place outside the events mentioned in the books. Maybe Molly and Arthur should sit down and tell a few war stories... Bill would probably remember fairly well, as would Charlie. Hagrid's sketch of the first war with its attendant distrust and fear (PS/SS) is quite intriguing. HF -- www.ontheqt.org eth.pitas.com Habent sua fata libelli. /Books have their own destiny.\ + terentianus maurus + [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Fri Aug 16 20:51:08 2002 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (bboy_mn) Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 20:51:08 -0000 Subject: Voldies at the Riddle Mansion; go get him! Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42779 Certainly, after hearing Harry's dreams and hearing what happened to Harry in the cemetery; Dumbledore must have figured out that Voldemort has been staying at the Riddle Mansion. True now that Voldemort is omnipotent (at least in his own mind), he probably won't hang around there much longer, but I would think that it would be worthwhile sending people to investigate. For one thing, there may be clues that would substantiate Harry's story; like disturbance to Riddle's grave, damage to headstones, the fresh foot prints of a couple dozen death eaters, eye or ear witnesses, or other clues that may have been left in the mansion. One thought is that Harry has never been to this place, but he has seen it and can describe it, and direct them to the room that Voldemort was staying in. Of course, this is all Book 5 stuff, and may very well come to pass. Just some thoughts. bboy_mn From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Fri Aug 16 21:11:26 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 21:11:26 -0000 Subject: Voldies at the Riddle Mansion; go get him! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42780 bboy_mn wrote: > Certainly, after hearing Harry's dreams and hearing what happened to > Harry in the cemetery; Dumbledore must have figured out that > Voldemort has been staying at the Riddle Mansion. > > True now that Voldemort is omnipotent (at least in his own mind), he > probably won't hang around there much longer, but I would think that > it would be worthwhile sending people to investigate. > > For one thing, there may be clues that would substantiate Harry's > story; like disturbance to Riddle's grave, damage to headstones, the > fresh foot prints of a couple dozen death eaters, eye or ear > witnesses, or other clues that may have been left in the mansion. One > thought is that Harry has never been to this place, but he has seen > it and can describe it, and direct them to the room that Voldemort > was staying in. > > Of course, this is all Book 5 stuff, and may very well come to pass. > > Just some thoughts. > > bboy_mn I don't see what you're getting at here, bboy_mn. Dumbledore already believes Harry's story, so why would he need proof for? About the only thing is to try to convince the MoM that Harry is telling the truth, but that clashes directly with Dumbledore's Modus Operandi. The fact is that Dumbledore has decided to bypass the MoM entirely in this second time over. They're simply too inmersed in bureaucracy and paperwork to be useful, and that's without considering all of the people who might be working for Voldemort from inside the MoM, and the ones that can be Imperioed. Besides, according to my pet theory (MAGIC DISHWASHER), Dumbledore already knows where the events took place, since he wanted Voldemort to use the potion, better than any other (im)mortality method (read the full story for the details). Since the potion required bones of his father, I'd imagine that Dumbledore knew exactly where they were. In fact, one of my theories is that the secret owner of the Riddle mansion is in fact Dumbledore, since Frank Bryce was kept on the job (another possibility is Malfoy, since he has many of Voldemort's objects, but I can't imagine Malfoy paying a poor, old man with difficulties to do the job properly). Hope that helps, Grey Wolf From eloiseherisson at aol.com Fri Aug 16 21:11:26 2002 From: eloiseherisson at aol.com (eloiseherisson at aol.com) Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 17:11:26 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] US Insanity and Translations Message-ID: <9b.2c14257e.2a8ec47e@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 42781 bboy_mn: > OK, they changed 'jumper' to 'sweater' and change 'meters' to 'feet' > (I assume). That's seems reasonable, but it has come to light that in > chapter 1 of GoF, that 'curse' was changed to 'murder', and in the > letter Sirius wrote to Harry explaining that it was Sirius that sent > Harry the Firebolt, the vault number was taken out (vault 711, I > believe). > > What kind of insanity is this? How much more of this is there that we > haven't discovered yet, that has corrupted the accuracy of the story? > Do they (who ever these idiots are) believe that we Americans are too > stupid to figure out for ourselves the implicatoins of the word > 'curse'? Are we so mentally inferior that we can't let our delicate > minds be befuddled with icky nasty numbers like 'vault 711'? Who are > these idiots who have decided they know more about this story than > Rowlings does? > > Rowlings seems to have research everything about Harry Potter down to > the smallest detail, and it is very rare to come across a specific > reference that doesn't have some important meaning to the story. In > fact, the minute level of meticulous detail in these books is > astounding. Beyond what I would have expected or imagined that any > author would do. What idiot editor took it upon himself to decide that > there is no significants to that vault number? > > Despite all I have said, I'm dumbfounded. I am in stunned disbelief > that any editor or published felt they could take it upon themselves > to actually change the functional content of the book. > > I have to wonder if Rowlings has ever read the American version of her > book. And I have to wonder if she would ever (certainly not in my > opinion) approve these changes? Rowlings? With an 's'? You mean they've even translated her *name*? I'm sorry, that was unkind; I'm prone to more than the odd typo myself, but I couldn't resist it. ;-) I wasn't aware that the vault no had been omitted, that does seem to be one of the stranger anomalies. As for metres (NB spelling!) to feet, I don't recall. I *think* that she uses Imperial measurements. I don't think the WW would have adopted metric! It's a recent development here, and as I've pointed out before, unreconstructed persons such as myself naturally think in Imperial. (I am of the crossover generation who learned both systems at school.) However, at the risk of repeating myself (I did mention that I find it very easy to be both invisible and inaudible), my theory is that things like the curse/murder problem actually result from JKR correcting errors which then recieved different editorial treatment on different sides of the Atlantic. I don't think it's a case of 'translation'. I'm not aware of the chronology. Were the two versions published simultaneously? The most obvious explanation to me, is that JKR realised a mistake in her manuscript (fairly late in the day); Bloomsbury corrected it, but Scholastic, for whatever reason, did not. This theory is backed up by the wand order problem having been corrected in UK editions, but not, (IIRC) in the US. I am sure that JKR is aware of these anomalies. (I wonder if this has anything to do with what we have heard about Scholastic not having the contract for Book 5?) Eloise [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From SaalsG at cni-usa.com Fri Aug 16 21:19:51 2002 From: SaalsG at cni-usa.com (Grace Saalsaa) Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 16:19:51 -0500 Subject: Will Seamus be the traitor? References: Message-ID: <003001c2456a$a9a1d340$5b3f53d1@DJF30D11> No: HPFGUIDX 42782 From: btk6y Hey, thought I'd bring up something I'd been mulling over for a while. There's obviously a lot of theories about whether Ron will betray Harry or not. What if Seamus becomes the traitor? When Seamus Finnegan is about to be sorted in SS, the Sorting Hat took a long time to figure him out. We know that the Hat took a long time to sort Neville and I figure that's because he may have borderline bravery (i.e. does he actually belong in Hufflepuff, he is good at Herbology, etc). Where do you think the Sorting Hat was thinking about putting Seamus instead of Gryffindor? Any of the other houses is a possibility, but my hunch is that the Hat was thinking about putting him in Slytherin. The reason for this is that I believe JKR put that in for a specific reason which will be revealed in time; I don't believe that there would be any big story if the Sorting Hat was deciding between Gryffindor and Hufflepuff or Ravenclaw. However, my hunch is that the Sorting Hat was choosing between Gryffindor and Slytherin, ended up putting Seamus in Gryffindor, but he will eventually end up betraying Gryffindor and Harry at some point. No other cannon evidence at all to support this except the fact that the Sorting Hat took a while to sort him, but I just don't see why JKR would include that tidbit if it wouldn't be important later- and I don't see why it would be important if the Hat was deciding vs. Hufflepuff or Ravenclaw. Any thoughts? Now me: Good thought....hmm. I was think the traitor is Neville. Not that he does it intentionally - but look how many times he's ginnocently given away information. Who tells Ron & Harry that Hermione is crying in the girls' bathroom? He has to write down the passwords - and they get stolen. Draco gets off the Hogwarts Express and says Neville told them Harry fainted in front of the dementor. (For that matter, Neville seemed to be getting picked on by Draco. Was Draco trying to extract whatever info from Neville about Harry)? Grace From Vera.Nazarov at sjeccd.cc.ca.us Fri Aug 16 21:17:55 2002 From: Vera.Nazarov at sjeccd.cc.ca.us (selkie1964) Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 21:17:55 -0000 Subject: Did Hagrid apparate? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42783 > Possibly Hagrid used a Portkey that was set up for him to get back to Hogwarts.Or it was a literary device used to enhance Harry's sense of awe and wonderment at the new world that had opened up to him. It makes a great deal of sense for Hagrid to have used a portkey. In GoF, the portkeys (the boot to the QWC and the trophy cup) seem to function as a link tuned to work between two distinct places. When you've used it one way, it resets to go back the other way. If Hagrid had been given a portkey set for between Hogwarts and wherever it is that Harry was, the next time it was used, it would have pulled Hagrid (and attendant Harry) to Hogwarts. Hagrid was supposed to take Harry to Diagon Alley, not Hogwarts, so he couldn't use the portkey until he was finished and going back to Hogwarts. Perhaps Hagrid invoked the portkey to get to Harry, then stowed it somewhere on his person (in one of the bajillions of pockets in his voluminous coat). Since he had just used it in the "away from Hogwarts" (to Harry's location) setting, it seems likely that it would work in the "to Hogwarts" mode even if it was invoked from a different location from where it initially set Hagrid down. In GoF, the whole thing about the portkeys being used to/from particular sites in the QWC scenario is to keep muggles from seeing crowds of wizards appearing and disappearing out of/into thin air. It doesn't seem to me that you would need powerful magic to invoke a portkey -- probably just a desire to get to wherever it is you're going and a simple "invoke" command (perhaps even just a mental "now"). After all, portkeys were being used to move vast numbers of people to and from the QWC -- these people would (one assumes) be of varying skill levels in terms of magic, so the portkey magic would, of necessity, have to be a "lowest common denominator" sort -- if you have any magical ability at all, you can invoke it; if you're a muggle, you can't. So Hagrid, even though he isn't fully trained and is not supposed to use magic, presumably could operate a portkey if it was set by someone else. When Hagrid tells Harry that he "flew" he might just have been offering a simple explanation to a boy who (he has realized) has absolutely no knowledge of the wizarding world; possibly, Hagrid didn't think that it was the best time to get into a long explanation of the concept of a portkey. Besides getting Harry's school supplies in Diagon Alley, he had to get the SS/PS from the vault and get it back to Dumbledore -- likely, he was in something of a hurry, worried about his commission, and not up to attempting a long explanation of a complex magical thing (using a portkey is simple; setting one is probably highly complex). --selkie1964 (new to the whole HP universe -- just read the books for the first time a couple of weeks ago -- devoured them, actually -- re- reading them slowly now :-) This place is GREAT, btw! From feliciarickmann at dsl.pipex.com Fri Aug 16 21:32:43 2002 From: feliciarickmann at dsl.pipex.com (feliciarickmann) Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 21:32:43 -0000 Subject: Mr Olivander's Opinion In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42784 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "grey_wolf_c" wrote: > > Felicia wrote: > > May we assume therefore that it was just the luck of the draw that > > Harry got the wand that was Voldemort's twin then, and that it is a > > coincidence that both are made out of wood associated in some form > > with death i.e. *Holly and Yew*, and that Lily Potter's wand was good > > for charm work and James's wand better for transfiguration by more > > arbitrary selection? > > > > Surely it would be better to suggest that all wands will work to a > > greater or lesser extent with all wizards BUT that the right wand in > > the right hands would perform over and above a wizard's expectations. > > > > I think Mr Olivander has a point. > > > > Felicia > > I never said that there aren't better suited wands for every person. > What I'm saying is that wands *do not* have the intelligence to choose > the wizard they are going to be bought by. Someone used an example with > a violinist and violins, but he didn't suggest that when the violinist > went into the music shop the violin chose him, instead of him choosing > the violin that suited him best. We've seen more than our share of > intelligent objects in Potterverse in these four books, and the wands > are *not* as intelligent as the map or the diary, at least not > intelligent enough to choose. > > If you had taken some time to read through my post, you may had noted > that none of the above arguments contradict it: I agree that some wands > are better suitedfor some people and that they are better suited for > some sorts of magic. The only things that I believe in are that the > wands *don't* have that magical brain Arthur dislikes so much and that > when Olivader *says* that the wand selects the wizard, it is either a > figure of speech, or a strange theory of a strange man which is not > exactly true. The trouble is that that sort of figure of speech is > easily missinterpreted, especially in a world where cars can fly and > live wild in a forest, maps answer back to people and diaries control > the reader's mind. > > Hope that helps, > > Grey Wolf Actually no, it doesn't help much. JKR goes to considerable lengths to provide a wealth of detail about wands and their specific content, although it is not made explicit in canon, much is made of the fact that certain wands work better with certain people, my comment on the types of wood in Harry's and Voldemort's wands refers at this point. The crucial elements of the wand core (e.g. drangheart string) can, by inference, be assumed to form their brain or memory and this would, in the magical world form part of the selection process when a wizard choses a wand. As so much is done by wands in canon, with the wizard or witch as executant of spells, charms etc., canon is fairly saturated with this intelligent form of magic with the wand as a conduit of magical energy and, as in GoF, able to *rewind* itself as in Fiat Incantatem. Not the work of an inanimate object. Felicia From corgi at SFF.net Fri Aug 16 21:54:56 2002 From: corgi at SFF.net (sffcorgi) Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 21:54:56 -0000 Subject: US Insanity and Translations In-Reply-To: <005201c24563$8540f1e0$badef718@kzo.chartermi.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42785 --- Yr Awen groused righteously: > ...the publishers felt it necessary to change the title of 'Harry > Potter and the Philosopher's Stone' to 'Harry Potter and the > Sorceror's Stone.' Argh! Was the first not catchy enough? O Spirit of Inspiration, I have just spent a good bit of time searching for the interview with Arthur Levine, the American editor, in which he said -- I wish I could quote, but I couldn't find it again -- that 'Philosopher's Stone' sounded 'too "Indiana Jones"' and therefore he came up with 'Sorcerer's Stone' because he felt it was more in keeping with the tone of the book. The absurdity burned its way into my brain pretty concisely, though. And he makes a lot more money than me, I'm quite sure. This was the best reference I could find about the title-change where it relates to the decision: http://www.kidsreads.com/harrypotter/jkrowling.html Corgi Dicentra Appreciation Society From rvotaw at i-55.com Fri Aug 16 22:05:24 2002 From: rvotaw at i-55.com (Richelle Votaw) Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 17:05:24 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Prof. Trelawney deserves credit! References: Message-ID: <009401c24571$068389e0$b49dcdd1@istu757> No: HPFGUIDX 42786 > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Gail Bohacek" wrote > about Trelawney's predictions: > > > Page 229: "I have seen that poor Prof. Lupin will not be with us for > very long." Confirmed...Lupin had to leave Hogwarts by the end of PoA. But she already knew that Lupin was a werewolf. On page 346 of PoA: Hermione says: "If I'd been a bit cleverer, I'd have told everyone what you are!" "But they already know," said Lupin. "At least, the staff do." Further down Lupin says "He (Dumbledore) had to work very hard to convince certain teachers that I was trustworthy." So it would only be logical that a werewolf won't stay forever in a teaching position. Someone's bound to let the cat out of the bag and set parents into an uproar. > > Page 176: To Harry; "My inner eye sees past your brave face to the > troubled soul within." Confirmed. Though Harry denies it, he still > hurts because of his parents' death. Well, boy, isn't she brilliant. Harry's parents died when he was a baby. He can't remember them, and knew nothing about them until he came to Hogwarts. Anyone could deduce that Harry would be more troubled as he learns more about his parents and feels closer to them, yet knows he will never know them. Harry isn't a very emotional child. He hides things behind that "brave face." But he feels it inside, even though he tries not to let it show. And tries to hide it when it does come out (pretending to tie his shoe while he wipes away tears, etc.) > > "I see difficult times ahead for you, alas...most difficult." > Confirmed. Still logical. See below. > > Page 176: "I fear the thing you dread will indeed come to pass, and > perhaps sooner than you think." Confirmed...it crosses Harry's mind > that the thing he dreads the most is Lord Voldemort returning.> Which comes to the difficult times. I'm sure Harry isn't the only one dreading Voldemort's return. And when he does return, it will be difficult for everyone, especially Harry. The whole WW knows that for some reason Harry was Voldemort's downfall last time around. He's the boy who lived. It's logical (I keep using that word!) to assume that Voldemort will want revenge on him, even if he didn't *do* anything to defeat him, as he was a baby after all. I still don't put much stock in Trelawney's "prophecies." Dumbledore does credit her with two correct predicitions, though. :) Richelle From kkearney at students.miami.edu Fri Aug 16 22:21:20 2002 From: kkearney at students.miami.edu (corinthum) Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 22:21:20 -0000 Subject: Arabella Figg and Polyjuice/Arthur and Molly's past In-Reply-To: <006501c24565$a1997f40$badef718@kzo.chartermi.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42787 Me earlier: > I just thought of another bit of support for my "Arthur and Molly >are > not old crowd members" theory. I was about to ask why we assume > Arabella is not actually old. I always have simply so she would be > a > contemporary of Sirius, Lupin, James, and Lily. Taking this into > consideration, it seems Dumbledore assembled a very young group to > fight Voldemort. <<<<<<<< HF: > I think you're omitting someone who may end up being important -- >Mundungus Fletcher, who is described by Arthur himself as being "old >Mundungus Fletcher", is one of the 'old crowd.' The impression I got >from Dumbledore's words is that the old crowd isn't a highly, highly >exclusive group of people, but rather those who are the most >dedicated to stopping Voldemort. The people Dumbledore wants to >summon, furthermore, seem to be a group of outsiders (we know how >Lupin feels about the threat of Voldemort, but not Figg -- although >we have good conjectures -- or Fletcher), and thus untainted by >Ministry politicking. Me now: I can't remember where the "old Mundungus Fletcher" reference is at the moment; could you give me a book and chapter? Since I don't have the quote in front of me, this may not be right. But I believe Arthur mentioned referred to him in this manner after Mundingus attempted to curse him. The use of "old" may therefore not be used to imply age, but rather antipathy. Also remember that Mundungus would now be about 35 or 40 if we assume him to be in his early twenties during Voldemort's first reign. Not very old, but then not young either (apologies to anyone of this age who takes offense). It seems we also disagree about what the "old crowd" was. I don't believe it was those most dedicated to the fight against Voldemort. I would assume this would include aurors and other professional dark arts fighters. Sirius mentioned in GoF that during Voldemort's reign, no one knew who to trust. Dumbledore does not seem the type to conduct a full assault, soldier-style. Instead, I see him heading an intelligence unit. Defeat the enemy from the inside. However, he needs some extremely brave and trustworthy agents for this job. Unable to trust many of his colleagues/friends in the MoM, and unable to use aurors whom the Death Eaters would recognize, Dumbledore turns to Hogwarts. From what we've seen of Hogwarts thus far, it seems that students are relatively isolated from the rest of the world. Not cut off by any means, but it would be difficult for Voldemort to reach students while they are at Hogwarts. So Dumbledore chooses the best and the brightest from the recent graduating class, people he knows very well and is sure he can trust. This small, secretive group is what he later refers to as the "old crowd". Me earlier: > Why? Perhaps he felt that with all the Imperius > curses going around, he couldn't trust anyone who had previous > experience. This would include MoM employee Arthur. Why assemble > a > group a young, just-graduated wizards, and then throw Arthur and > Molly into the mix? They simply don't fit. <<<<<<<<< HF: > Are you referring to the first confrontation with Voldemort, or the >second? I'm sorry, but I'm not clear on that :-) I'm guessing you're >meaning that, in the first battle, Dumbledore needed the 'rookies' >(so to speak), while older wizards/witches -- eg McGonagall, Arthur - >- could possibly be corrupted or influenced due to their being more >well-known, or being thought of as a more logical target for the >Dark side. But then, I could be completely off-base. Me now: Yes, I was referring to the first rise. From what Sirius said, many MoM officials were influenced by the Imperius Curse. Which should lead someone intelligent like Dumbledore to be very wary of anyone within the MoM. HF: > In GoF, Dumbledore doesn't seem to be setting up a full-frontal >assault against Voldemort, at least, not yet. He is, however, >explicit that Arthur needs to begin working right away in order to >convince people in the Ministry not to share Fudge's attitude. Me now: I believe he is once again beginning an internal battle: determine who to trust within the MoM, inform officials of the true threat and gain their loyalty, gain the trust of the giants, possibly infiltrate the DE ranks (I don't believe Snape is doing this though; too obvious). No full-frontal assault for Dumbledore, but when he needs them, he will have the support and information he needs (probably Book Seven-ish). HF: > Secondly, in an earlier post it was mentioned by someone, I can't >remember who... Me now: It was I. :) HF: >that Molly's reactions to Sirius Black and her obvious, yet >suppressed, fear when Dumbledore asks if he can count on her, >indicate she and/or Arthur is/are not a member/s of the 'old crowd' >or a trusted cadre of Dumbledoreian soldiers. I honestly can't agree >with that, at least, as a piece of evidence. She has a very large >family and a *lot* to lose in the coming war, and I think it takes a >lot of courage to place herself and her children in danger. There, >too, is always the presence of the "mortal peril" location on the >Weasley family clock -- for me, that has unexpectedly dark overtones >in a descriptive passage that is otherwise light-hearted. Dumbledore >probably recognizes this, and wants to find a way to say he *knows* >she and Arthur will help him out without actually stating it as such. Me now: I think you misinterpreted my description of Molly's reaction. I didn't say it implied a lack of courage. It implied a lack of knowledge. She knew Sirius Black as a murderer and nothing more. I think she and Arthur will play a large and courageous role in the coming fight, simply not in the past one. HF: >Maybe Molly and Arthur should sit down and tell a few war stories... >Bill would probably remember fairly well, as would Charlie. Me now: Hmm, don't believe Arthur and Molly would have any inside info, but Bill...well, he could easily fit into the age group of my theoretical old crowd...must contemplate this possibility. -Corinth From rvotaw at i-55.com Fri Aug 16 22:30:46 2002 From: rvotaw at i-55.com (Richelle Votaw) Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 17:30:46 -0500 Subject: Dumbledore Message-ID: <009d01c24574$917e6da0$b49dcdd1@istu757> No: HPFGUIDX 42788 I have always liked Dumbledore, after all, as JKR said "he's the epitamy of goodness." But there's something that bothers me about him. He seems to give Harry *way* more information than any other student at Hogwarts, but doesn't do much to help him handle it. It's hard to explain, so I'll give a couple of examples. 1) In SS/PS, Harry's in the hospital wing. Dumbledore tells him about his mother's sacrifice. Then becomes interested in a bird out the window while Harry wipes away tears on the sheet. Why pretend not to notice? Sure, boys aren't supposed to cry. But can't we get away from that stereotype? Harry's never had a chance to grieve for his parents, let him cry and tell him it's okay. 2) In GoF, Dumbledore tells Harry all sorts of things that really aren't his business. Such as Neville's parents. If Neville wanted Harry to know he'd have told him. Of course, after four years the topic should have come up. Although I imagine Harry avoids the topic of parents as much as possible. 3) Here's where I have *real* issues with Dumbledore. Harry comes back from the graveyard, port keys back to Hogwarts. Harry is horribley dazed, still hanging on to Cedric's body. Dumbledore picks Harry up and set him on the ground. Harry's swaying on his injured leg, his head is pounding, he feels like he's going to throw up, and is just standing there. All Dumbledore says is "Harry, stay here." But instead Moody/Crouch half pulls, half carries him away to his office and sits him down. Gives him whatever and he drinks it, and things start to clear up for Harry. Fast forward a ways, Dumbledore, McGonagall, and Snape all stupefy Moody. McGonagall's even about to cry, tries to take Harry to the hospital wing. Dumbledore makes him stay, goes on about understanding, etc. Crouch Jr. tells all, Dumbledore is ready to take Harry upstairs. Harry stands up, sways again, realizes that he's shaking. Dumbledore grips his arm and helps him walk. So Dumbledore knows he's hurt. He's been hurt, not to mention traumatized. No one does anything for the boy until he gets to Dumbldore's office and Fawkes fixes his leg and sings a note to strengthen him. Would it really have hurt for Snape to whip up a magical pain reliever while he's getting a truth potion anyway? Can't someone *do* something to help? I know Dumbledore's trying to take care of the emotional pain, but he seems to ignore the physical. Unless of course he had instructed Fawkes to do something (or is Fawkes and using a time turner, which is way too complicated to be the key if you ask me) in which case he still let him suffer a while. Is this a "guy" thing or is physical pain just an after thought to him? I've probably got everyone else who's still reading as confused as I am, but every time I think I've figured Dumbledore out and he's such a great guy he goes and does something illogical. Sorry, but I was with Minerva on this one, except I guess prolonging the retelling wouldn've helped. Richelle ------------------------------------ Richelle R. Votaw 1st grade teacher Kentwood Elementary ------------------------------------ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From crana at ntlworld.com Fri Aug 16 22:18:01 2002 From: crana at ntlworld.com (rosie) Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 23:18:01 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: How Long Will Wormtail's New Hand Last? (WAS: Poor Wizards) References: Message-ID: <00d801c24572$cde63680$0bb068d5@xxx> No: HPFGUIDX 42789 Phyllis wrote: > > I read that interview as well, and JKR says (in response to a > question about why wizards need money) "something you conjure out of > thin air will not last." But this made me wonder about the silver > hand Voldemort conjures for Wormtail at the end of GoF. It > was "conjured out of thin air" so will it also "not last?" It's not a real hand though, right? It's just a prosthesis. It doesn't look at all real. Perhaps a similar thing could happen in that, for example, you could make ghostly-looking money, but obviously no one would mistake it for the real thing. Rosie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From rvotaw at i-55.com Fri Aug 16 22:40:22 2002 From: rvotaw at i-55.com (Richelle Votaw) Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 17:40:22 -0500 Subject: Sirius' exclamation Message-ID: <00d501c24575$eb7811c0$b49dcdd1@istu757> No: HPFGUIDX 42790 Okay, here's another question for you. We've been through Dumbledore's jumping up to see Harry's arm when he told of Wormtail piercing his arm with the dagger. But what did Sirius' "vehement exclamation" mean? Is this just a "How dare he hurt my godson!" or does he pick it up as an important clue? Richelle ------------------------------------ Richelle R. Votaw 1st grade teacher Kentwood Elementary ------------------------------------ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Fri Aug 16 22:44:06 2002 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (bboy_mn) Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 22:44:06 -0000 Subject: Voldies at the Riddle Mansion; go get him! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42791 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "grey_wolf_c" wrote: > > bboy_mn wrote: < < Certainly, after hearing Harry's dreams and hearing what happened to Harry in the cemetery; Dumbledore must have figured out that Voldemort has been staying at the Riddle Mansion. True now that Voldemort is omnipotent (at least in his own mind), he probably won't hang around there much longer, but I would think that it would be worthwhile sending people to investigate. For one thing, there may be clues that would substantiate Harry's story; like disturbance to Riddle's grave, damage to headstones, the fresh foot prints of a couple dozen death eaters, eye or ear witnesses, or other clues that may have been left in the mansion. One thought is that Harry has never been to this place, but he has seen it and can describe it, and direct them to the room that Voldemort was staying in. Of course, this is all Book 5 stuff, and may very well come to pass. Just some thoughts. > > END bboy_mn < < > The ever so Knowledgable and Opinionated, with a very cool name, GREY WOLF: < I don't see what you're getting at here, bboy_mn. Dumbledore already believes Harry's story, so why would he need proof for? About the only thing is to try to convince the MoM that Harry is telling the truth, but that clashes directly with Dumbledore's Modus Operandi. The fact is that Dumbledore has decided to bypass the MoM entirely in this second time over. They're simply too inmersed in bureaucracy and paperwork to be useful, and that's without considering all of the people who might be working for Voldemort from inside the MoM, and the ones that can be Imperioed. > end Grey Wolf - paragraph 1 < bboy_mn replies: It's not to convince Dumbledore; I agree, he's all ready convinced, but any good investigator investigates the scene of a crime. People will eagerly support Dumbledore, but still, it's going be hard to convince people that Voldemort is back. Not because they don't believe it, but because they don't want to believe it. Still, I'm sure his friends will come around quickly. Let's face, there is a whole wizard world that is going to need convincing, and better they are convinced by Dumbledore's logical explaination and the evidence, then for them to wait until Voldemort and the DE's are marching down their street. The Ministry - True, Dumbledore realizes that the Ministy's bureaucracy is a hinderance, but Arthur Weasley still has to get as many individual Ministry officials on his side as possible. You may not like the ministry but you still have to deal with them. So the scene of the crime my provide information to support Harry's claim and it may supply information that Harry is not aware of. This reenforces Dumbledore ability to argue his position. Just seems logical, to go there and look for any possible clues that might help. Maybe the cauldron is there, and a sample of the cauldron potion might help Dumbledore confirm that Voldemort has made himself vulnerable. Just don't think it could hurt to take a look at the scene of the crime. -end boy_mn reply to paragraph 1 - Grey Wolf Continues: paragraph 2 Besides, according to my pet theory (MAGIC DISHWASHER), Dumbledore already knows where the events took place, since he wanted Voldemort to use the potion, better than any other (im)mortality method (read the full story for the details). Since the potion required bones of his father, I'd imagine that Dumbledore knew exactly where they were. In fact, one of my theories is that the secret owner of the Riddle mansion is in fact Dumbledore, since Frank Bryce was kept on the job (another possibility is Malfoy, since he has many of Voldemort's objects, but I can't imagine Malfoy paying a poor, old man with difficulties to do the job properly). Hope that helps, > End - Grey Wolf < bboy_mn also continues: There is a difference between what Dumbledore knows and the available evidence. Example: you can know someone committed a crime, but not have enough evidence to prove it; Knowledge vs Proof, Knowledge vs Evidence, Knowledge vs Information. Any evidence, any information that can be gathered has to be helpful to them. Who knows, maybe Voldie in his arrogance, left some information behind. Dumbledore owns Riddle Manor- I always thought that was a cool idea, and very reasonable. Why did Rowlings even say that some unknow investor owned the Mansion for 'tax purposes' unless that person has some significants. She could have just ignored the ownership issue and let us assume it was abondon. Although, it may have be just to explain Bryce's continued presents there. Still I think it would be cool if at the end of the story, Dumbledore gives the mansion to Harry and Sirius as a reward for the help in defeating Voldemort. bboy_mn From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Fri Aug 16 22:51:57 2002 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (bboy_mn) Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 22:51:57 -0000 Subject: Sirius' exclamation In-Reply-To: <00d501c24575$eb7811c0$b49dcdd1@istu757> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42792 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Richelle Votaw" wrote: > Okay, here's another question for you. We've been through Dumbledore's jumping up to see Harry's arm when he told of Wormtail piercing his arm with the dagger. But what did Sirius' "vehement exclamation" mean? Is this just a "How dare he hurt my godson!" or does he pick it up as an important clue? > > Richelle > > ------------------------------------ > Richelle R. Votaw > 1st grade teacher > Kentwood Elementary > ------------------------------------ > bboy_mn comments: Just a thought. Anytime a person's blood is used in a magic ritual, potion, etc... this is powerful magic. This is magic at it's peak; especially, dark magic at it's peak. (I'm speaking of the world of fictional magic, wizardry, and witchcraft in general, not just to Rowlings world.) So Sirius reaction could simple be 'Oh crap, he took your blood! Damn, this is serious; really serious!', or something to that effect. Again, just a thought. bboy_mn From gandharvika at hotmail.com Fri Aug 16 21:42:21 2002 From: gandharvika at hotmail.com (Gail Bohacek) Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 21:42:21 +0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Prof. Trelawney deserves credit! Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42793 I asked: > > Mayhaps I'm mistaken, but I thought that Prof. Snape was the only one > > who knew that Lupin was a werewolf? Grey Wolf responded: >You *are* mistaken. To quote canon: (Sp. ed. PoA, ch. 17, lib. trans.) >"They already know [that I'm a werewolf] -said Lupin-, At least, the >teachers know." I say: Thank you for clearing that up. Grey Wolf continued: >In my opinion, it cannot even rank the position of "inexact science". >Psychiatry is an inexact science. Pretending to be able to read the >future is nothing but flim-flam and make believe, from my (cientific) >point of view...etc... I respond... Everybody is entitled to their own opinion :) >1980. Check the Lexicon for the full theory, but boiled down, it comes >to: if Nick's death party is to be taken for truth, CoS takes place in >1992. Harry was born 12 years before that book, thus he was born in >1980. Again...thank you for the information. -Gail B. who happens to believe in "flim-flam"...but also readily admits that there are a lot of fakers out there, too. _________________________________________________________________ Join the worlds largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com From jkusalavagemd at yahoo.com Fri Aug 16 22:02:28 2002 From: jkusalavagemd at yahoo.com (jkusalavagemd) Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 22:02:28 -0000 Subject: Occam's Razor: Oops, I may have cut myself! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42794 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "porphyria_ash" wrote: > I'd just like to remind everyone that Avada Kedavra derives from the > *Aramaic.* (Speaking of giving other language families their due.) I > shall quote from Steve's invaluable lexicon: > > << > Avada Kedavra > Aramaic: "adhadda kedhabhra" - "let the thing be destroyed". > NOTE: Abracadabra is a cabbalistic charm in Judaic mythology that is > supposed to bring healing powers. One of its sources is believed to > be from Aramaic avada kedavra, another is the Phoenician alphabet (a- > bra-ca-dabra). > >> > > http://www.i2k.com/~svderark/lexicon/spells_a.html#avada%20kedavra I am continually impressed by new evidence of JKR's meticulous research in her writing, but, as much as I would like to believe that she consciously alluded to this "adhadda Kedhabhra" spell, I wonder if coincidence has reared its head. I am no scholar of Aramaic, but the transliteration of the spell provided is "close, but no cigar." If a correct transliteration were as close as the one in the above NOTE, I would enthusiastically agree that JKR had used it as a source. I find more compelling the explanation of "Abra cadabra" as the charm from the Kaballah, which meaning is the opposite of the intent of the AV Unforgivable Curse. For me, at least, this rings of coincidence, not intent. Who, other than JKR, knows the truth of it? The richness of her prose allows for both our opinions, and the enjoyment of arguing either side. Thank you for the information on the Kabbalah and the Aramaic. Whether is explains the AV curse or not, I am the richer for it. Haggridd From gandharvika at hotmail.com Fri Aug 16 22:33:26 2002 From: gandharvika at hotmail.com (Gail Bohacek) Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 22:33:26 +0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Prof. Trelawney deserves credit! Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42795 Richelle Wrote: >I still don't put much stock in Trelawney's "prophecies." Dumbledore does >credit her with two correct predications, though. :) I respond: Well, I ain't gonna be starting a Prof. Trelawney Fan Club site any time soon. :) But I've had my palm read and my astrological chart done by very reliable people, and find it a lot of it quite accurate...and this is coming from somebody who is *VERY* skeptical and doesn't start answering any leading questions that the reader might pick up on. Remember, this is the site which, not too long ago, was discussing the mechanics of magic. I do think that a Divinations class has it's place in Hogwarts, though, granted, Prof. Trelawney is probably not the best one for the job. -Gail B. P.S...What if the new DADA teacher is Prof. Trelawney? Just Kidding! Just Kidding! _________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com From bard7696 at aol.com Sat Aug 17 00:05:37 2002 From: bard7696 at aol.com (darrin_burnett) Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2002 00:05:37 -0000 Subject: Missing 24 hours In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42796 BBoy, commenting on Brian's Area 51 post: > > > Just one thing missing Brian, although, I do like the 'Area 51' idea, > Hagrid specifically mentions Bristol which is West of the Burrow while > London/Surrey is East of the Burrow. Fit Bristol into you theory and > you might be on to something. > I like the idea too, but I see some cold water lurking on the theory. Why would these magical investigators only agree to 24 hours (or less, given the travel time involved) of study? If Harry really is kind of an "E.T." character, set to be probed and prodded to see what makes him tick, wouldn't he become almost a ward of the ministry? A possible answer to this is that Dumbledore cashed in a hell of a lot of ministry chips, called in a bunch of favors and bent quite a few arms to get Harry back to a "normal" life. I would imagine Dumbledore had to do quite a bit of persuading anyway, to convince Ministry higher-ups that Harry's best place was with Muggles. Even wizards who didn't know anything about how rotten the Dursleys were might not be keen on Harry living with Muggles. Didn't a lot of people pester Fudge about where Harry Potter was and why he was with Muggles? Did he just say: "Dumbledore says its best"? Darrin -- Maybe part of Figg's job is to report to Area 51 From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Sat Aug 17 00:28:40 2002 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (bboy_mn) Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2002 00:28:40 -0000 Subject: The Clock Says 'Mortal Peril'....ooowww my stomach hurts. Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42797 Certainly, Rowlings doesn't just throw bits and pieces into her story at random. It seems like every little detail is meticulously research and meticulously placed in the story, so certainly, the clock location for 'Mortal Peril' will be seen again. Two Questions: 1.) Will Mrs. Weasley have Harry's name added to the clock? At first the would seem like a very kind gesture. Sort of, a 'you're part of the family now' thing. 2.) When you buy a clock like that, at first, it seems pretty cool, but if you are Mrs. Weasley sitting at home night after night staring at the clock, just waiting for one of the hands to move to 'mortal peril', I would think it would drive you nuts. Then, how nuts is she going to get when one of the hands does move to 'moral peril'. She home alone, everyone is off at school or off fighting the war, and see is sitting there watching the hands of all her loved ones moving to mortal peril, and his helpless to do anything. So what can she do, but sit there waiting and watching (or expecting) them to move to Death one by one. Who needs that kind of stress? I would think it would be better to not know until after the fact. On the other hand, she and the clock may see mortal peril that is not obvious to the person who is in mortal peril, and may somehow be able to communicate that to them. In any event, it sounds like a good way to give yourself an ulcer. Just a thought. bboy_mn From yrawen at ontheqt.org Sat Aug 17 00:43:37 2002 From: yrawen at ontheqt.org (yr awen) Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 20:43:37 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Arabella Figg and Polyjuice/Arthur and Molly's past References: Message-ID: <001b01c24587$206fe220$badef718@kzo.chartermi.net> No: HPFGUIDX 42798 Corinth: I can't remember where the "old Mundungus Fletcher" reference is at the moment; could you give me a book and chapter? Since I don't have the quote in front of me, this may not be right. But I believe Arthur mentioned referred to him in this manner after Mundingus attempted to curse him.<<<<<< Correct. The specific passage is from CoS3, when Arthur Apparates back home after a rough night at the office: "Nine raids. Nine! And old Mundungus Fletcher tried to put a hex on me when I had my back turned." Also, in GoF10, it's also mentioned that, after the attack at the Quidditch World Cup, Fletcher sues for damages to a super-luxury tent when it's known that he was camping out under a cloak held up with sticks (Percy says he's "got his number.")Without putting too fine, or perjorative, point on it, that's pretty crotchety manipulative behavior. The use of "old" may therefore not be used to imply age, but rather antipathy. Also remember that Mundungus would now be about 35 or 40 if we assume him to be in his early twenties during Voldemort's first reign. Not very old, but then not young either (apologies to anyone of this age who takes offense).<<<<<<<< However, it's *Arthur* who calls him old, and Arthur is presumably around 65-70 years, easily Fletcher's senior if you assume Fletcher to be as old as, or at least roughly contemporaneous with, the Marauders & Co. Dumbledore does not seem the type to conduct a full assault, soldier-style. Instead, I see him heading an intelligence unit. Defeat the enemy from the inside.<<<<<< You're quite right, I agree. But with the qualification that the "war" with Voldemort wasn't a war in the specific sense of fighting with weapons on a field, but rather a systematic campaign of terror and psychological warfare. The Aurors and Dept. of Mystery-type people seem to me to be more of a police force than a military unit (like a SWAT team versus the National Guard, if you're a US citizen; what the British equivalent would be, I'm not sure.) I get this impression from the description of largely domestic violence in the recounting of the past conflict -- for example, the Potters and the Longbottoms are killed/tortured in their own homes, as opposed to a physical battlefield. Pettigrew's curse blows a street apart, taking innocent bystanders out along with Aurors. The feuds between various parties are between families, rather than countries (eg. the Weasleys and Malfoys), and at the conclusion of the war, punishment is meted out in the form of summary court justice, as seen with Crouch, who unhesitatingly condemns his own son. Digression... I wonder what the extent of Voldy's campaign was -- if it was specific to the British Isles, or if its effects were felt elsewhere, like the Continent or even in the States. The presence of people like Dholov and Karkaroff indicates that there were people in Europe sympathetic to Voldemort's cause, but Voldemort's motives in his little power struggle seem incredibly opaque. Dumbledore talks of enlisting the aid of the giants and other quasi-humans who might find Voldemort's offer of enfranchisement attractive, but I don't think he ever says, "You know, we should see if the Spanish wizards and witches could help us out" or something like that. Anyway... back to your regularly scheduled program: Given what we know of Dumbledore's tactics in the past war (not much), I'd say that your "intelligence unit" theory is sort of close to what I'm trying, unsuccessfully, to envision. Dumbledore is a great hero, famed for his defeat of Grindelwald and discovery of 12 uses of dragon's blood and all that -- and he's the one wizard Voldemort always feared (maybe because he's not afraid of Voldemort, who thrives on fear.) He's famous, which would make him ill-suited for intelligence work. A strategist is maybe what I'm going for here, one who takes information from *all* fields -- covert intelligence, street talk, government mutterings -- to shape his strategy. Yet, the extent to which he is successful in that first conflict is highly in doubt; I don't think the status of the war as of Voldemort's unexpected death (emphasis, 'unexpected') is ever made clear. Are the good guys winning, or was Voldemort's temporary incapacitation a stroke of fortune? Corinth: However, he needs some extremely brave and trustworthy agents for this job. Unable to trust many of his colleagues/friends in the MoM, and unable to use aurors whom the Death Eaters would recognize, Dumbledore turns to Hogwarts.<<<<<<< This would make sense in the context of the very beginning of PS/SS, when McGonagall appears to be completely in the dark regarding Dumbledore's plans for Harry; she mentions that the only reason she's hanging out on Privet Drive was because Hagrid tipped her off. Interesting! Corinth: I believe he is once again beginning an internal battle: determine who to trust within the MoM, inform officials of the true threat and gain their loyalty, gain the trust of the giants, possibly infiltrate the DE ranks (I don't believe Snape is doing this though; too obvious).<<<<<<<<<< One would probably say that that's the only way to fight a battle, especially against members of your own community. Fudge and other like-minded individuals strike me as being in a particularly dangerous form of denial. Corinth: I think you misinterpreted my description of Molly's reaction. I didn't say it implied a lack of courage. It implied a lack of knowledge. She knew Sirius Black as a murderer and nothing more. I think she and Arthur will play a large and courageous role in the coming fight, simply not in the past one.<<<<<<<<<< You're discounting Lupin, though, who has absolutely no idea of Sirius' innocence until he sees Pettigrew's name on the Marauders' Map, and other people who presumably knew Sirius as a good person gone horribly and irredeemably bad -- a person who would inspire the same fear/hatred/fury we see in Molly. There's also the reaction of Hagrid, who appears to have been very closely involved in Dumbledore's affairs and was with Sirius right after the Potters died; he can't believe that he comforted the "murdering traitor" (PoA.) Further, Molly doesn't have the benefit of the evidence provided by the Map, so it's not possible for her to react as Lupin does to Sirus' sudden appearance with shock instead of hate/outrage. However, she seems to recover fairly quickly; after Sirus' initial transformation, she only has the one reaction before apparently calming down -- she doesn't run away screaming or try to pull her wand on him or what have you. Dumbledore also seems to trust her with not spreading rumors about Sirius' presence, or else leaves her to work out his innocence for herself. He does seem satisfied, though, that she won't try anything to jeopardize Sirius or his work. At this point, I'm wondering if the 'old crowd' constitutes not Dumbledore's "insiders" as you say, in a general sense, but rather the people more intimately connected with the protection of Harry (in addition to his parents.) You have Sirius who was supposed to be the Potters' Secret-Keeper, Lupin the close friend/associate of Sirius and James and who knew of the plans to use the Fidelius Charm, Arabella who is presumably Harry's 'guardian' for the duration of his life on Privet Drive, and then Fletcher, who at this point is an utter mystery and throws my fledgling theory into doubt Corinth: Hmm, don't believe Arthur and Molly would have any inside info, but Bill...well, he could easily fit into the age group of my theoretical old crowd...must contemplate this possibility.<<<<<<< The irritating thing about Bill is that no one knows when he went to Hogwarts, or how much older he is than Charlie -- although, judging from the way he dresses and Harry's awed description of him as "cool," I'm guessing that he was slightly younger than the Marauders et. al, although there's absolutely nothing in canon to support that. HF. -- www.ontheqt.org eth.pitas.com Habent sua fata libelli. /Books have their own destiny.\ + terentianus maurus + [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From purple_801999 at yahoo.com Sat Aug 17 00:41:06 2002 From: purple_801999 at yahoo.com (purple_801999) Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2002 00:41:06 -0000 Subject: The Clock Says 'Mortal Peril'....ooowww my stomach hurts. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42799 bboy_mn wrote- > Certainly, Rowlings doesn't just throw bits and pieces into her story at random. It seems like every little detail is meticulously research and meticulously placed in the story, so certainly, the clock location for 'Mortal Peril' will be seen again. > 2.) When you buy a clock like that, at first, it seems pretty cool, > but if you are Mrs. Weasley sitting at home night after night staring at the clock, just waiting for one of the hands to move to 'mortal peril', I would think it would drive you nuts. > > Then, how nuts is she going to get when one of the hands does move to > 'moral peril'. She home alone, everyone is off at school or off > fighting the war, and see is sitting there watching the hands of all > her loved ones moving to mortal peril, and his helpless to do > anything. So what can she do, but sit there waiting and watching (or > expecting) them to move to Death one by one. Who needs that kind of > stress? I would think it would be better to not know until after the fact. > > On the other hand, she and the clock may see mortal peril that is not > obvious to the person who is in mortal peril, and may somehow be able > to communicate that to them. > > In any event, it sounds like a good way to give yourself an ulcer. > Exactly what I was thinking. I wonder if Ginny's hand moved to mortal peril when she was in the Chamber of Secrets? That was pretty close to if not completely mortal peril. And what about the hand that says lost? What good does it do to know they're lost but you can't find them? That's why their lost! Great now I'm getting an ulcer. -Olivia Grey, who can now post with impunity. No, not really, but it made me feel good to think it. From porphyria at mindspring.com Sat Aug 17 00:41:27 2002 From: porphyria at mindspring.com (porphyria_ash) Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2002 00:41:27 -0000 Subject: Occam's Razor: Oops, I may have cut myself! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42800 I had quoted from the Lexicon: > > Avada Kedavra > > Aramaic: "adhadda kedhabhra" - "let the thing be destroyed". > > NOTE: Abracadabra is a cabbalistic charm in Judaic mythology that > is > > supposed to bring healing powers. One of its sources is believed to > > be from Aramaic avada kedavra, another is the Phoenician alphabet > (a- > > bra-ca-dabra). > > > > http://www.i2k.com/~svderark/lexicon/spells_a.html#avada% 20kedavra And Haggridd replied: > I am continually impressed by new evidence of JKR's meticulous > research in her writing, but, as much as I would like to believe that > she consciously alluded to this "adhadda Kedhabhra" spell, I wonder > if coincidence has reared its head. I am no scholar of Aramaic, but > the transliteration of the spell provided is "close, but no cigar." Me again: I honestly don't understand exactly what you mean. Are you saying that Avada Kedavra is not a close enough match for "adhadda kedhabhra"? Because that simply is a transliteration issue: Aramaic letters do not correspond to Latin ones exactly and so scholars can come up with two different Latin alphabet equivalents for the same Aramaic term depending on the transliteration system they use. Scholars of Kabbalah agree that Avada Kedavra is the Aramaic for "let the thing be destroyed." I have found it mentioned in Kabbalah literature that had nothing to do with Harry Potter. I found some info on Abracadabra and Avada Kedavra on the Encyclopedia Mythica website, and it confirms what the HP Lexicon states: http://www.pantheon.org/mythica.html http://www.pantheon.org/articles/a/abracadabra.html It seems clear to me that JKR is indeed up on her scholarship and fully intended the AV curse to be Aramaic. On the other hand, Haggridd, if I've misunderstood the point you were trying to make I apologize. I do find it very interesting that Abracadabra would be a healing charm and Avada Kedavra a curse, but that irony seems to predate JKR and Harry Potter. Perhaps in Kabbalistic use the incantation "let the thing be destroyed" was supposed to refer to the disease and not the bearer of the charm. ~Porphyria From yrawen at ontheqt.org Sat Aug 17 00:52:02 2002 From: yrawen at ontheqt.org (yr awen) Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 20:52:02 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] The Clock Says 'Mortal Peril'....ooowww my stomach hurts. References: Message-ID: <002401c24588$4cd82e20$badef718@kzo.chartermi.net> No: HPFGUIDX 42801 bboy_mn said: Certainly, Rowlings doesn't just throw bits and pieces into her story at random. It seems like every little detail is meticulously research and meticulously placed in the story, so certainly, the clock location for 'Mortal Peril' will be seen again.<<<<< You know, the first time I saw the 'mortal peril' thing, I thought it was sort of funny. It was only after I finished GoF and started seriously thinking about the series that I saw it as being potentially a bad thing. 'Bad' in the sense of 'it wasn't mentioned to be funny.' Two Questions (bboy posed): 1.) Will Mrs. Weasley have Harry's name added to the clock? <<<<< I could definitely see that happening -- she's certainly a strong mother figure for Harry, and considers him like a son. 2.) When you buy a clock like that, at first, it seems pretty cool, but if you are Mrs. Weasley sitting at home night after night staring at the clock, just waiting for one of the hands to move to 'mortal peril', I would think it would drive you nuts.<<<<<< I've given thought to this (and have written fanfic on it), and I have to say that the image of Molly sitting in a darkened room staring at the clock and watching a hand or hands -- and, for all we know, maybe all the hands, if the Burrow was directly threatened -- is pretty powerful. bboy: Then, how nuts is she going to get when one of the hands does move to 'moral peril'. She home alone, everyone is off at school or off fighting the war, and see is sitting there watching the hands of all her loved ones moving to mortal peril, and his helpless to do anything.<<<<< I've always wondered if the clock displayed the several times Ron has been in mortal peril: the trip through the third floor room to get the Stone; being trapped in a cave-in in the Chamber of Secrets, of all places (not to mention Ginny here, too! That *has* to count as mortal peril); being ostensibly dragged off by Sirius Black... If the clock was doing anything during those times, I think I would have had a coronary. HF. -- www.ontheqt.org eth.pitas.com Habent sua fata libelli. /Books have their own destiny.\ + terentianus maurus + [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From yrawen at ontheqt.org Sat Aug 17 00:58:22 2002 From: yrawen at ontheqt.org (yr awen) Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 20:58:22 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: US Insanity and Translations References: Message-ID: <003101c24589$2f3a9640$badef718@kzo.chartermi.net> No: HPFGUIDX 42802 Corgi said: --- Yr Awen groused righteously: Yesss! I'm grousing righteously for once! Woo hoo! More substantively, Corgi said: This was the best reference I could find about the title-change where it relates to the decision: http://www.kidsreads.com/harrypotter/jkrowling.html<<<<<<<< Thanks for the ref :-) Although my fury is somewhat mitigated by JKR's statement that she selected the Americanized title, that Levine saw anything at all that needed changing is still an annoyance. "Indiana Jones" my left foot. HF. -- www.ontheqt.org eth.pitas.com Habent sua fata libelli. /Books have their own destiny.\ + terentianus maurus + [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From rsteph1981 at yahoo.com Sat Aug 17 00:04:58 2002 From: rsteph1981 at yahoo.com (Rebecca Stephens) Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 17:04:58 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Did Hagrid apparate? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020817000458.6180.qmail@web20003.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 42803 --- selkie1964 wrote: > When Hagrid tells Harry that he "flew" he might just > have been > offering a simple explanation to a boy who (he has > realized) has > absolutely no knowledge of the wizarding world; > possibly, Hagrid > didn't think that it was the best time to get into a > long explanation > of the concept of a portkey. Besides getting > Harry's school supplies > in Diagon Alley, he had to get the SS/PS from the > vault and get it > back to Dumbledore -- likely, he was in something of > a hurry, worried > about his commission, and not up to attempting a > long explanation of > a complex magical thing (using a portkey is simple; > setting one is > probably highly complex). > Actually, ever since I found out about Floo powder, I've just been assuming that's what Hagrid meant, and that Harry misunderstood. Figured he went from Hogsmeande to Diagon Alley and then to the leaky cauldron. Later, taking into account that he wasn't familiar with Muggle things considered that he might have arrived at Mrs. Figgs or somewhere near Harry. It's just that I've been assuming that Harry heard "flew" when Hagrid said "Floo." Does this make any sense? Rebecca ===== http://wychlaran.tripod.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? HotJobs - Search Thousands of New Jobs http://www.hotjobs.com From m.bockermann at t-online.de Sat Aug 17 02:50:50 2002 From: m.bockermann at t-online.de (m.bockermann at t-online.de) Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2002 02:50:50 -0000 Subject: Voldies at the Riddle Mansion; go get him! References: <1029539981.1722.89807.m7@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <003701c2459a$58a53f60$1ffb9b3e@computer> No: HPFGUIDX 42804 bboy_mn wrote: > True now that Voldemort is omnipotent (at least in his own mind), he > probably won't hang around there much longer, but I would think that > it would be worthwhile sending people to investigate. And Grey Wolf argued: I don't see what you're getting at here, bboy_mn. Dumbledore already believes Harry's story, so why would he need proof for? About the only thing is to try to convince the MoM that Harry is telling the truth, but that clashes directly with Dumbledore's Modus Operandi. The fact is that Dumbledore has decided to bypass the MoM entirely in this second time over. They're simply too inmersed in bureaucracy and paperwork to be useful, and that's without considering all of the people who might be working for Voldemort from inside the MoM, and the ones that can be Imperioed. Me: I must disagree with you, Grey Wolf. There is indeed a need to proove Harry's story because *not* everybody believes him and its a terrible shame - one that will probably cause the loss of lives - that the MoM did not do it . Dumbledore, Harry's friend and the old crowd believe Harry. They know him and can trust him not to exaggerate. And they know he is not mentally unstable. For the rest of the WW, that is *not* the case. Do you remember Rita's news article on the morning of the third task? The one that does not impress Harry in the least? Well, Harry did not care about it, but Hermione and Ron did not want him to read it. They did not take it seriously either, but they thought it would wreck his concentration. But others wizards and witches *will* believe it. *We* might know that Rita is an immoral, cheating yellow press reporter of the worst order. But for the rest of the WW she is a reliable and captivating journalist. Even Molly fell to her snare and believed Rita's lies about Hermione. And she knows Hermione. The other wizards and witches do not know Harry. They have no reason to suspect foul play when she writes that the WW's most beloved young wizard is dangerously mentally ill. One who is absolutely convinced about Harry's mental problems and consequently Harry's unrealiability is Fudge. He refuses to put the MoM in motion because he believes neither the "problem-ridden" Harry nor Dumbledore, whom he does not quarrel with for the first time. To proove the later: remember his decision to suspend DD in HP2. To show that in spite of the regard in which DD is held in the WW, he does have his political enemies and is not untouchable is one of the most importants of the book, IMHO. Anyway, Fudge simply refuses to believe Harry and blames Barty Crouch jr. ("conveniently" eliminated by the Dementor) for Cedrick's death. And that is certainly what he told the public in the WW: Cedrick's death was due to Barty Crouch jr., a sick old Deatheater. He explicitly forbids DD to spread word about any other theory and threatens to throw him out if he he does not obey his order. DD conciously ignored this order at the end of GoF, when he told the students the truth because he felt they had a right to know. That is bound to result in a fall off. The fact, that DD admits in his speech that others still want him to remain silent shows that between Cedrick's death and the end of schoolyear *nobody* from the MoM searched for proof to confirm Harry's story. (Though I would not be surprised to learn that one of the old crowd did.) Fudge does not know about Frank's death and attributes those of Crouch sr. and Cedrick to Barty Crouch jr. We know from DD's speach that nobody from the MoM search the scene of crime. Fudge has every reason to believe Rita's article and clearly expresses his doubts over Harry's mental health. He might have the IQ of grass, but he *is* the Minister of Magic. When he says: Barty Crouch jr. was the culprit - who outside the old crowd will not believe him? It is worse than the MoM being simply to bureaucratic to act against Voldemort's return. For most of them, there is simply no reason to act. Exceptions are on the one hand side Deatheaters and their sympathisants that might work in the MoM. On the other side there are those that are loyal to DD. Arthur Weasly will certainly be among them. We do not know for sure about Avery. Percy Weasly might be a wild card. However no matter how many allies there will be at the MoM, they are bound to be ridiculed at the very least, mobbed or hurt at the worst. Well, Fudge did not alter his order and DD ignored it. Since the book ends shortly after DD's speach, we do not know whoFudge will react. It is possible that DD may only be reprimanded. But it might very well be that Hogwarts will see a new headmaster at the beginning of book five. As proof for this theory I put forward Rita's articel, Fudge's threat and DD's behavior between Cedrick's death and his speach. He gives tasks to various allies like Hagrid and Snape and he asks for the old crowd to reassemble. DD also points out how important trustees in the MoM will be for them. Why should he do that - unless he knows that his direct contact with the MoM will cease in short time? My guess is that "the old crowd" will have to operate in the underground for the next year. That is also in keeping with JKR's statement that Harry has been very protected so far but will not remain so in the future. Without DD in Hogwarts, life will be much more dangerous there for Harry. I suppose that the MoM will only start to believe DD and Harry when the bodies start to pile up. :-( We have not learned about any of this, because the GoF ends to early for that. Ethanol From purple_801999 at yahoo.com Sat Aug 17 01:11:35 2002 From: purple_801999 at yahoo.com (purple_801999) Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2002 01:11:35 -0000 Subject: Will Seamus be the traitor? In-Reply-To: <005d01c24565$56563960$badef718@kzo.chartermi.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42805 > btk6y said: > > Hey, thought I'd bring up something I'd been mulling over for a > while. There's obviously a lot of theories about whether Ron will > betray Harry or not. What if Seamus becomes the traitor?<<<<<< > HF wrote- > I honestly don't think so, unless there's a *lot* of development in >Seamus' character through the next three books. We simply don't know >much about him at all, other than that he's a rabid Irish National >fan in GoF and manages to blow things up in PS/SS.> I doubt Seamus would be the traitor given that he has said his mother is a witch while his father is a Muggle. Not the type of person Voldie would welcome with open arms. But he also said his mother didn't tell his father she was a witch until after they were married and that it was a nasty shock for him. Could this be a repeat of Tom Riddle's abandonment by his father due to his magical abilities? > > Additionally, I'm not entirely sure why there *has* to be a traitor >in the first place. It provides symmetry, I suppose, with >Pettigrew's betrayal of the Potters, but still... maybe we're all a >bit too wrapped up in our suspicion-slash-Judas complex and our 'need' to have someone be the token turncoat. Given the story so far, there's no clear traitor in Harry's midst, at least among the Gryffindors, only our febrile speculation as to possible motivation and opportunity, much of which has a considerable amount of contradictory evidence (esp. in the case of Ron.) Further, it may be possible that any 'betrayal' might be completely inadvertent or be forced, eg. someone being placed under Imperius, being blackmailed, or maybe accidentally leaving a piece of crucial information out in the open, not deliberate, as it apparently was with Pettigrew. > > I wonder if the betray will be about the battle with Lord Voldemort. It could be about a more trivial matter but important to Harry, like Quidditch or Cho Chang. I too believe if Neville is the traitor it will be by accident and hopefully he will be given a chance to redeem himself. Another possibility could be someone is falsly believed to have betrayed Harry but is cleared in a later book like Sirius. -Olivia Grey From magsthomas at yahoo.com Sat Aug 17 01:31:08 2002 From: magsthomas at yahoo.com (magsthomas) Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2002 01:31:08 -0000 Subject: What-NOTT and the DEs Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42806 Just finished checking the archives after my third reading of GoF to see if this has been discussed before, and as it didn't readily appear in my search, here goes: While it has been interesting to track all this speculation about Arabella Figg, Mundungus Fletcher and the assorted members of the "old crowd," we haven't really speculated about the little-known DEs. Checking the archives once more, the LeStranges may be an exception. When I started thinking about what we know about the DEs, Nott and Avery seemed to stand out. Feel free to add to this list below -- where I don't know full names, I've indicated an (X): 1) Lucius Malfoy -- (borrowing from 'Oh Brother') He's the pater familius for Narcissa & Draco. Harbors intense dislike of Muggle- born wizards (could be said of all DEs?), intense loathing of Arthur Weasley (in particular) and family. Maintains and circulates an illegal collection of Dark Arts items, not the least of which was Tom Riddle's diary. Responsible for torturing Muggles following the Quidditch World Cup. Extrapolating from Draco's situation at Hogwarts, perhaps a ringleader for the Seniors Crabbe and Goyle. 2 & 3) (X) Crabbe, Sr. & (X) Goyle, Sr. -- Based on what we see when Voldemort returns (GoF), as dense as their offspring. 4) Barty Crouch, Jr. -- Recipient of the Dementors' Kiss. Spy / vehicle for creating circumstances by which Harry could be captured and used for Voldemort's return. Spilled his guts after drinking Veritaserum -- fancied he was Voldemort's most loyal follower, saw lots of parallels between himself and Voldemort's relationships with their respective fathers. Irritated that Voldemort seemingly "forgave" the DEs who weren't sent to Azkaban or who hadn't made more effort to restore Voldemort to power. 5) (X) MacNair -- Cleared of any association with Voldemort following the Potters' death; executioner for the Ministry and, based on what Voldemort has to say in GoF, as bloodthirsty an executioner among the DEs 6) The (X) LeStranges -- Husband & wife duo imprisoned in Azkaban for crimes committed in service to Voldemort. Sentenced to Azkaban for their a role in torturing Frank Longbottom and his wife with the Cruciatus Curse. 7) Peter 'Wormtail' Pettigrew -- Potters' Secret Keeper, betrayed Harry's parents to Voldemort. Hid for 13 years as Scabbers, Ron's pet rat, letting Sirius Black take the rap for killing Muggles. Helped nurse Voldemort toward eventual return. An admitted coward who tries to surround himself with people who have greater abilities than he and can afford him protection. 8) Igor Karkaroff -- Became Durmstrang Headmaster. Ran away in fear when the Dark Mark returned on his arm, should Voldemort choose to exact immediate revenge for inaction and / or Karkaroff's willingness to provide names of fellow DEs to Crouch, Sr. to save his own hide. 9) (X) Rosier -- Mentioned in GoF at the trials Harry witnesses via the Pensieve. Dead following struggle with Aurors (Moody wounded during fight). 10) Antonin Dolohov -- Muggle-torturer apprehended by the Aurors around the same time as Karkaroff. Presumably in Azkaban. 11) (X) Travers -- Murdered the McKinnons (GoF / Pensieve) 12) (X) Mulciber -- Imperius Curse specialist (GoF / Pensieve) 13) Augustus Rookwood -- Insider at the Department of Mysteries (an Unspeakable?). Was fed information by a young Ludo Bagman (promised Bagman a post-Quidditch career job @ the Ministry), as well as other sources within the Ministry of Magic. 14) Severus Snape -- Childhood nemesis of Moony, Wormtail, Padfoot & Prongs, now Hogwarts Potions Master. DE-turned-Spy for Dumbledore; cleared of prior wrong-doing, vouched for (repeatedly) by Headmaster Dumbledore. Presumably in hot water with Voldemort as a result. 15) (X) Avery -- Target of Voldemort's Cruciatus Curse when the DEs congregate in GoF. 16) (X) Nott -- A stooped figure in Goyle, Sr's shadow when Voldemort does his DE roll call. Prostrates himself before Voldemort and claims fealty to his master. A post in HPfGU Archives recall that a Nott, Jr. goes through the Sorting Ceremony since Harry's arrival at Hogwarts. This last one has me curious, because the name is thrown in as an aside, much the same way we see Arabella Figg's and Mundungus Fletcher's names get tucked unobtrusively into the tapestry JKR is weaving. So here's my question -- any theories as to what role Nott & family -- or other little-known DEs -- will play in the future storyline? - Margaret From purple_801999 at yahoo.com Sat Aug 17 01:46:05 2002 From: purple_801999 at yahoo.com (purple_801999) Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2002 01:46:05 -0000 Subject: Rita Skeeter's Article. (Was Re: Voldies at the Riddle Mansion; go get him!) In-Reply-To: <003701c2459a$58a53f60$1ffb9b3e@computer> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42807 m.bockermann at t... wrote: > > Do you remember Rita's news article on the morning of the third task? The one that does not impress Harry in the least? Well, Harry did not care about it, but Hermione and Ron did not want him to read it. They did not take it seriously either, but they thought it would wreck his concentration. > > But others wizards and witches *will* believe it. *We* might know that Rita is an immoral, cheating yellow press reporter of the worst order. But for the rest of the WW she is a reliable and captivating journalist. Even Molly fell to her snare and believed Rita's lies about Hermione. And she knows Hermione. The other wizards and witches do not know Harry. They have no reason to suspect foul play when she writes that the WW's most beloved young wizard is dangerously mentally ill.>>>> That reminds me of a question that came up as I read GoF. Why did Molly after repeatedly defaming Rita as nothing more than a nosy troublemaker when she went after the MoM and Harry did she believe the article about Hermione? She always seem to have a very friendly relationship with her and knew Rita Skeeter exaggerated and misrepresented the facts. Did she really think a sensible fourteen year old girl like Hermione could be a 'scarlet woman'? -Olivia From yrawen at ontheqt.org Sat Aug 17 01:59:44 2002 From: yrawen at ontheqt.org (yr awen) Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 21:59:44 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Rita Skeeter's Article. (Was Re: Voldies at the Riddle Mansion; go get him!) References: Message-ID: <004601c24591$c2100740$badef718@kzo.chartermi.net> No: HPFGUIDX 42808 Olivia said: That reminds me of a question that came up as I read GoF. Why did Molly after repeatedly defaming Rita as nothing more than a nosy troublemaker when she went after the MoM and Harry did she believe the article about Hermione?<<<<<<< The very name of the paper, 'The Daily Prophet,' due to the fact that it employs someone like Rita Skeeter and has the audacity to call itself a 'Prophet' when it reports on stuff that's already happened, sort of amuses me :-) I would say that Molly's just extremely protective of Harry and his feelings, especially when it has to do with other people --and I mean 'protective' almost to the point of irrationality. It's very strange what we will believe sometimes, even when it's said by people we don't trust. HF. -- www.ontheqt.org eth.pitas.com Habent sua fata libelli. /Books have their own destiny.\ + terentianus maurus + [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bard7696 at aol.com Sat Aug 17 01:59:16 2002 From: bard7696 at aol.com (darrin_burnett) Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2002 01:59:16 -0000 Subject: Rita Skeeter's Article. (Was Re: Voldies at the Riddle Mansion; go get him!) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42810 Olivia wrote: > > That reminds me of a question that came up as I read GoF. Why did > Molly after repeatedly defaming Rita as nothing more than a nosy > troublemaker when she went after the MoM and Harry did she believe > the article about Hermione? She always seem to have a very friendly > relationship with her and knew Rita Skeeter exaggerated and > misrepresented the facts. Did she really think a sensible fourteen > year old girl like Hermione could be a 'scarlet woman'? > > -Olivia First, my guess is that this will just be written off as some kind of overprotectiveness on Molly's part and niceties like whether it makes sense will be ignored. But I do have a theory: We know that Molly, Hermione and Ginny have engaged in quite a bit of girl talk and presumably Ginny and Hermione probably have as well, which might have been reported back to Molly. What if Molly knows more about Hermione's feelings for Harry - or Ron - than she's telling the boys and was therefore shocked when she read about Hermione and Krum? Darrin -- If I had a date with Padma, I'd sure as hell not ignore her From rvotaw at i-55.com Sat Aug 17 02:09:57 2002 From: rvotaw at i-55.com (Richelle Votaw) Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 21:09:57 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Occam's Razor: Oops, I may have cut myself! References: Message-ID: <006e01c24593$2fc146e0$d99fcdd1@istu757> No: HPFGUIDX 42811 Haggridd writes: > I am continually impressed by new evidence of JKR's meticulous > research in her writing, but, as much as I would like to believe that > she consciously alluded to this "adhadda Kedhabhra" spell, I wonder > if coincidence has reared its head. I am no scholar of Aramaic, but > the transliteration of the spell provided is "close, but no cigar." > If a correct transliteration were as close as the one in the above > NOTE, I would enthusiastically agree that JKR had used it as a > source. I find more compelling the explanation of "Abra cadabra" as > the charm from the Kaballah, which meaning is the opposite of the > intent of the AV Unforgivable Curse. For me, at least, this rings of > coincidence, not intent. Who, other than JKR, knows the truth of > it? The richness of her prose allows for both our opinions, and the > enjoyment of arguing either side. Thank you for the information on > the Kabbalah and the Aramaic. Whether is explains the AV curse or > not, I am the richer for it. > > Haggridd What I think maybe, just maybe JKR did is combine two or three different languages to come up with the spelling/meaning of "Avada Kedavra." Those languages including Aramic, Latin, and whatever Abra Cadabra comes from. Aramic and Latin for sure, the third is a maybe since the actual *meaning* is pretty much opposite of what happens. Here's my reasoning for this: In Aramic you get "Let the thing be destroyed." This tells what you want done. >From Abra Cadabra you get not necessarily the healing part but the ancient powers. >From Latin you *can* get (and other things I'm sure) "Yielding to covetousness." This tells that the person performing the curse is above all things, greedy and coveting the person's very life. Just a thought. Richelle From miss_dumblydore at yahoo.com Sat Aug 17 02:18:59 2002 From: miss_dumblydore at yahoo.com (Heather Gauen) Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 19:18:59 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] The Clock Says 'Mortal Peril'....ooowww my stomach hurts. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020817021859.80392.qmail@web20421.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 42812 bboy_mn wrote: >So what can she do, but sit there waiting > and watching (or > expecting) them to move to Death one by one. Me: I meant to ask this the first time I saw it here, but forgot, and this just reminded me. Do we know for sure if "death" is on the clock? In my GoF, it mentions "home", "school", "work", "traveling", "lost", "hospital", "prison", and, on the number twelve position, "mortal peril". I always figured that "dead" would occupy the number twelve position if it was there, and concluded that it must not be. (Of course, that's my strange little assumption and maybe it's there, just not on twelve.) But now that the whole murder vs. curse thing has reared its ugly head, I've been wondering what other differences there might be between the British and American versions. All right, that's it, I'm buying the British Order of the Phoenix! :) Heather, who now needs to get ice because she dropped Goblet of Fire on her foot while getting it off the shelf to check... __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? HotJobs - Search Thousands of New Jobs http://www.hotjobs.com From yrawen at ontheqt.org Sat Aug 17 02:33:55 2002 From: yrawen at ontheqt.org (yr awen) Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 22:33:55 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] The Clock Says 'Mortal Peril'....ooowww my stomach hurts. References: <20020817021859.80392.qmail@web20421.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <005901c24596$888936e0$badef718@kzo.chartermi.net> No: HPFGUIDX 42813 Heather wrote: I meant to ask this the first time I saw it here, but forgot, and this just reminded me. Do we know for sure if "death" is on the clock? In my GoF, it mentions "home", "school", "work", "traveling", "lost", "hospital", "prison", and, on the number twelve position, "mortal peril". I always figured that "dead" would occupy the number twelve position if it was there, and concluded that it must not be.<<<<<<<<< My GoF, first-edition American hardcover, stops at 'mortal peril' too. (Peers around at the British listees.) Well? Is this another instance of crappy American sub-editing? Now that you've listed the various situations in which the Weasleys could find themselves, the clock -- even aside from the Mortal Peril thing -- seems incredibly, well... It seems like the invention of someone who is living through a time when the family is in danger. Prison? Hospital? Mortal Peril? Lost? None of these things can *possibly* be good. While it's a good thing to know where your loved ones are, even if it leads to tension and fear, one has to wonder what the Weasleys are/were up to... HF. -- www.ontheqt.org eth.pitas.com Habent sua fata libelli. /Books have their own destiny.\ + terentianus maurus + [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From porphyria at mindspring.com Sat Aug 17 02:34:32 2002 From: porphyria at mindspring.com (porphyria_ash) Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2002 02:34:32 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore In-Reply-To: <009d01c24574$917e6da0$b49dcdd1@istu757> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42814 Richelle gave several examples of Dumbledore not helping Harry deal with the information he gives him, including: <<1) In SS/PS, Harry's in the hospital wing. Dumbledore tells him about his mother's sacrifice. Then becomes interested in a bird out the window while Harry wipes away tears on the sheet. Why pretend not to notice? Sure, boys aren't supposed to cry. But can't we get away from that stereotype? Harry's never had a chance to grieve for his parents, let him cry and tell him it's okay.>> My comments: I think that in general the text characterizes Harry as being tough and very invested in his image of himself as being tough. He associates fear and emotion with weakness. Of course Harry has never had any reason to trust adults and he has never been encouraged to show his feelings about anything with the Dursleys, so as a result he is very stoic, and also very proud of his stoicism. I think that JKR wants us to see Dumbledore as humoring Harry here, as not making him feel embarrassed about showing emotion. I think it goes beyond a stereotype of 'boys don't cry;' I think it's more like Harry in particular doesn't cry and hates to cry because it makes him feel weak, and he's used to the Dursleys teasing him for every weakness. I agree that you might think Dumbledore would tell him it's OK to cry, but I suspect that Dumbledore feels that merely saying that to Harry won't change Harry's feelings of pride and his desire to appear tough. Harry might need to mature a little more and get more used to trusting others before he feels it's OK to cry in front of anyone. Dumbledore is presumably intuitive enough to understand Harry's stoicism, especially since Harry has just finished showing that he considered saving the Philosopher's Stone to be more important than his own life. So he's letting Harry have his moment of emotion in private. He's not criticizing him for it either -- perhaps Dumbledore feels the most subtle way to let Harry cry is to just be neutral about it. Harry would certainly hate to be fussed over. They books abound with examples of Harry's attitude towards this, although it's mostly implicit in PS/SS. That book does mention that Dudley cries to manipulate his parents into giving him whatever he wants, so perhaps Harry associates crying with manipulation. In PoA he is humiliated by his susceptibility to the Dementors and worries that it means he's weak. He hates the fact that Malfoy teases him over this and his other friends become terribly worried about it. Likewise, when Lupin doesn't let him face the Boggart in class, Harry worries that Lupin thinks he's a coward. Lupin wants to comfort Harry in his sorrow over his parents, but he too understands that Harry would hate this and would continue to suspect Lupin of considering him weak if he were to embrace him. Likewise in GoF, Harry is extremely reluctant to tell anyone about his scar hurting him, he's afraid that complaining about it will make it look like he's losing his nerve. Even when he finally writes to Sirius about it, he has to slip the mention in very casually so as to make it not seem like a big deal. And of course it takes a long time for him to finally bring himself to mention this to Dumbledore. I think on the one hand the text equates stoicism with heroism and applauds Harry for putting his ideals before his worry about his own problems. Before Harry goes through the trapdoor in PS/SS, he makes it clear that he isn't worried about expulsion or death itself because if Voldemort gets a hold of the Stone, then it will mean death for himself and everyone else. He sees his own well-being as less important that that of the whole wizarding world. On the other hand, I think the way that Harry deals with his own sense of weakness and his trust in adults will change with time. It's quite a triumph when Harry finally confides in Dumbledore about his scar, and it's quite dramatic when Harry finally lets Molly comfort him at the end of the book. So I think that Dumbledore is just trying to let Harry deal with this part of himself in his own good time. Richelle again: <<2) In GoF, Dumbledore tells Harry all sorts of things that really aren't his business. Such as Neville's parents. If Neville wanted Harry to know he'd have told him. Of course, after four years the topic should have come up. Although I imagine Harry avoids the topic of parents as much as possible.>> Me: I think this is an example of the changing relationship between Dumbledore and Harry. Dumbledore is slowly letting Harry learn more about the history of the wizarding world, and at the same time showing that he knows that Harry can keep a secret. I think Harry will come to understand that if Dumbledore can trust and confide in him, then he too can trust and confide in Dumbledore. I think this is a more subtle approach than Dumbledore just telling Harry "you can come tell me your problems any time you want." I think Harry would resist that, but he might respond more to a gradual awakening of curiosity and his sense of his position in the grand scheme of things. I think that Harry will naturally develop more curiosity about his parents in future books, and what we see in GoF is Dumbledore planting the idea in Harry's head of the importance of history without telling him how he should feel in a bossy way. Richelle: << 3) Here's where I have *real* issues with Dumbledore. Harry comes back from the graveyard, port keys back to Hogwarts... I know Dumbledore's trying to take care of the emotional pain, but he seems to ignore the physical. Unless of course he had instructed Fawkes to do something (or is Fawkes and using a time turner, which is way too complicated to be the key if you ask me) in which case he still let him suffer a while. Is this a "guy" thing or is physical pain just an after thought to him?>> Me: Well, again, the books seem to laud the wizard ideal as being tough on physical pain. Here's a passage from the beginning of GoF: "It wasn't the pain that bothered him; Harry was no stranger to pain and injury. He had lost all the bones from his right arm once and had them painfully regrown in a night. The same arm had been pierced by a venemous foot-long fang not long afterward. Only last year Harry had fallen fifty feet from an airborn broomstick. He was used to bizarre accidents and injuries; they were unavoidable if you attended Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry and had a knack for attracting a lot of trouble." I think this represents both Harry's opinion and the wizarding world's opinion. There's almost a bit of black humor to it. I think the point we are supposed to get from this is that in general if Harry is to be the hero to defeat Lord Voldemort then he ought to be a bit stoic about physical pain. He might just be in for a few more Crucios and he shouldn't fear that sort of thing. I agree that Dumbledore might be a bit more sympathetic, but I think he tries to recognize Harry as heroic and part of doing that within the wizarding culture is to not treat him as if he were wimpy or in constant need of coddling. I think if we think of Harry as a normal boy in the real world we will all be horrified at his treatment even at the hands of his allies. So we have to factor in a little appreciation for the Hero's Journey genre and consider that Real Wizards are just made of tougher stuff than Muggles like us. ~Porphyria From rvotaw at i-55.com Sat Aug 17 02:39:24 2002 From: rvotaw at i-55.com (Richelle Votaw) Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 21:39:24 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] The Clock Says 'Mortal Peril'....ooowww my stomach hurts. References: <20020817021859.80392.qmail@web20421.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <000f01c24597$4d3cbe80$43a1cdd1@istu757> No: HPFGUIDX 42815 Heather writes: > I meant to ask this the first time I saw it here, but > forgot, and this just reminded me. Do we know for sure > if "death" is on the clock? In my GoF, it mentions > "home", "school", "work", "traveling", "lost", > "hospital", "prison", and, on the number twelve > position, "mortal peril". I always figured that "dead" > would occupy the number twelve position if it was > there, and concluded that it must not be. (Of course, Well, I had always thought that maybe the hand would just disappear if they were dead. But then when Harry, Hermione and the Weasleys return to the Burrow after the Quidditch game Mrs. Weasley comes running out of the house saying "Arthur--I've been so worried--so worried." "You're all right . . . you're alive . . . oh boys . . . " and then proceeds to practically strangle Fred and George hugging them. It sounds like she was passing the time reading the Daily Prophet wondering if they were alive, not looking at the clock to see. Which has me a little confused, to say the least. Anybody care to explain? Richelle From rvotaw at i-55.com Sat Aug 17 02:48:53 2002 From: rvotaw at i-55.com (Richelle Votaw) Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 21:48:53 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Dumbledore References: Message-ID: <001b01c24598$a0803ee0$43a1cdd1@istu757> No: HPFGUIDX 42816 > Richelle gave several examples of Dumbledore not helping Harry deal > with the information he gives him, including: > > <<1) In SS/PS, Harry's in the hospital wing. Dumbledore tells him > about his mother's sacrifice. Then becomes interested in a bird out > the window while Harry wipes away tears on the sheet. Why pretend > not to notice? Sure, boys aren't supposed to cry. But can't we get > away from that stereotype? Harry's never had a chance to grieve for > his parents, let him cry and tell him it's okay.>> > > Porphyria comments: > > . On the other > hand, I think the way that Harry deals with his own sense of weakness > and his trust in adults will change with time. It's quite a triumph > when Harry finally confides in Dumbledore about his scar, and it's > quite dramatic when Harry finally lets Molly comfort him at the end > of the book. So I think that Dumbledore is just trying to let Harry > deal with this part of himself in his own good time. Perhaps I'm being too much of a softy. :) It takes four years, but you're right, at the end of GoF it seems like Harry is ready to just let it all out. Maybe everything has been building and building inside of him and it's just time to let it go. Harry's eyes start to burn and he starts blinking. Mrs. Weasley whispers "It wasn't your fault, Harry." Harry replies "I told him to take the cup with me." (Harry pauses here to wish that Ron would look away. Like it would be okay to cry in front of Mrs. Weasley, even Hermione, but not Ron.) At this point Mrs. Weasley can do nothing but hold him. Which seems to be the release point. Page 714 says "The full weight of everything he had seen that night seemed to fall in upon him as Mrs. Weasley held him to her." And everything he had seen that night is pretty much the compilation of everything that's been building over the years. His mother's face, his father's voice, etc. I suppose Dumbledore does know best, but I'll just never understand men. :) Richelle From yrawen at ontheqt.org Sat Aug 17 02:55:49 2002 From: yrawen at ontheqt.org (yr awen) Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 22:55:49 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] The Clock Says 'Mortal Peril'....ooowww my stomach hurts. References: <20020817021859.80392.qmail@web20421.mail.yahoo.com> <000f01c24597$4d3cbe80$43a1cdd1@istu757> Message-ID: <006701c24599$980e9300$badef718@kzo.chartermi.net> No: HPFGUIDX 42817 Richelle said: Well, I had always thought that maybe the hand would just disappear if they were dead. But then when Harry, Hermione and the Weasleys return to the Burrow after the Quidditch game Mrs. Weasley comes running out of the house saying "Arthur--I've been so worried--so worried." "You're all right . . . you're alive . . . oh boys . . . " and then proceeds to practically strangle Fred and George hugging them. It sounds like she was passing the time reading the Daily Prophet wondering if they were alive, not looking at the clock to see. Which has me a little confused, to say the least. Anybody care to explain?<<<<<<<<<<<<<< I would imagine that "you're alive" would be uttered by any parent/spouse (or *anyone*) who just saw a loved one for the first time after knowing them to be in danger -- it's a purely reflexive exclamation, and not governed by reason or knowledge of circumstances. When Mrs. Weasley strangles FrednGeorge and starts going on about how the last thing she said to them was a sharp remark about their OWLs, again it's an example of her relief that they're actually alive and okay. No matter what a clock or a newspaper or anyone says, sometimes you have to see the physical fact to know someone, particularly someone you love, is unharmed. HF. -- www.ontheqt.org eth.pitas.com Habent sua fata libelli. /Books have their own destiny.\ + terentianus maurus + [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From coriolan_cmc at hotmail.com Sat Aug 17 04:24:09 2002 From: coriolan_cmc at hotmail.com (coriolan_cmc2001) Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2002 04:24:09 -0000 Subject: Scarlet Woman (filk) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42818 Scarlet Woman (GoF, Chap 27-28) (To the tune of Devil Woman) Dedicated to Pip Hear the original at: http://www.foxlink.net/~bobnbren/1960s.html THE SCENE: Potions' Class. The TRIO have been made aware of Rita Skeeter's libelous slur of HERMIONE in Witch Weekly RON (reading Skeeter's article aloud) "They warned Harry about her, told him she was such a blight Harry laughed and ignored `em, but Harry is not too bright. She toys with that poor boy's affections, though she is a homely gal. `Cause that Hermione, what she aspires to be is the grand femme fatale "Oh, scarlet woman, scarlet woman, let Harry be! Scarlet woman, let him be! She thinks she's so smart She's merely a tart "Viktor came here from Bulgaria, he's the famous star in Quidditch Soon his sad heart was broken by that devious young witch Scarlet woman, so skinny, she traps them all with love charms `Cause since she shrunk her teeth she thinks we're all beneath her, she ain't worth a darn. "Oh, scarlet woman, scarlet woman, let Viktor be! Scarlet woman, let him be! She'll turn Viktor Krum To a worthless bum." (To the surprise of HARRY and RON, HERMIONE just laughs the article off) HERMIONE Rita Skeeter, she's stupid, like the blast-ended skrewt Like Vince Crab & Greg Goyle, if she thinks I give a hoot. Every word she writes is a falsehood, not excluding "the" & "and." And everyone will see (perhaps not Pansy P.) through her crude sleight of hand Oh, Skeeter woman, Skeeter woman, go have a calf Skeeter woman, make me laugh Don't care what you say So slander away (Segue to the Great Hall a few days later during breakfast as the owls arrive) HARRY During breakfast the owls came, carrying letters for us Hermy got lots of hate-mail full of bubotuber pus Made her hands break out in boils, and her eyes to fill with tears Now our Hermione needs the infirmary `cause Skeeter loves doing smears HERMIONE Oh, Skeeter woman, Skeeter woman, so slanderous! Skeeter woman, pus for pus! Vengeance is mine! I'll payback design! - CMC HARRY POTTER FILKS http://home.att.net/~coriolan/hpfilks.htm NOTE: The line "Every word she writes is a falsehood...." is a paraphrase of (IIRC) a line by Dorothy Parker regarding Lillian Hellman. From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Sat Aug 17 04:26:51 2002 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (bboy_mn) Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2002 04:26:51 -0000 Subject: The Clock Says 'Mortal Peril' In-Reply-To: <005901c24596$888936e0$badef718@kzo.chartermi.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42819 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "yr awen" wrote: > Heather wrote: > > I meant to ask this the first time I saw it here, but forgot, and > this just reminded me. Do we know for sureif "death" is on the > clock? In my GoF, it mentions "home", "school", "work", "traveling", > "lost", "hospital", "prison", and, on the number twelve position, > "mortal peril". I always figured that "dead" would occupy the number > twelve position if it was there, and concluded that it must not > be.<<<<<<<<< > Bboy_mn makes a general comment: I'm sure I mistakenly assumed the 'death' location on the clock. But it brings up an interesting question; what happens if you die while in mortal peril? Does the clock hand stay stuck on 'mortal peril' forever, until the family removes the hand from the clock? Death after mortal peril would leave the clock with no stimulus; nothing to make that hand ever move again. Now, I can picture Mrs. Weasley sitting for hours looking at the hand stuck on Mortal Peril wondering, is that person still in mortal peril or are they gone forever. I swear, if there ever was a magic device that would give you ulcers; this is certainly it. bboy_mn From tmarends at yahoo.com Sat Aug 17 04:36:53 2002 From: tmarends at yahoo.com (tmarends) Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2002 04:36:53 -0000 Subject: Silver or Silvery? (WAS: How Long Will Wormtail's New Hand Last?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42820 Grey Wolf wrote: > > At any rate, there is no canon that the werwolves in Potterverse are > affected by silver. Although it's a general sort of affliction for > werewolves, the weak points of those sort of creatures changes widely > from book to book. For example, most of the werewoves I've read about > are *not* affected by wolvesbane (a plant), but traditionally it's > either death for a werewolf, or what changes you into one to begin > with. > > To give weight to the "silver doesn't harm werewolves in Potterverse" > theory, just point out that sickles are made of silver, and I don't > think that Lupin is incapable of accepting change when buying something > (although that would explain why he's so poor: everything he buys has > to be rounded up to the next galleon, unless he happens to carry enough > knuts). > > Grey Wolf It has always been my understanding that silver only affected the warewolf, not the man. In other words, by the light of a full moon, when he is in his "wolf" form could silver be used against a warewolf. It's like inviting a vampire into your home. Once you do that nothing that harms a vampire (except sunlight) works. Not garlic, or Holy water, or anything. JKR may have a different take on both creatures. We'll have to wait and see. But there has to be a reason Pettigrew was given a "silver" hand. Tim A. From hp_lexicon at yahoo.com Sat Aug 17 04:51:21 2002 From: hp_lexicon at yahoo.com (hp_lexicon) Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2002 04:51:21 -0000 Subject: the Weasley Ages and more on the "Missing 24-hours" thread In-Reply-To: <092201c241ff$c041d140$4f5ffea9@cq5hs01> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42821 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Penny Linsenmayer wrote: > > Hana again: <<<<<<< > While I do agree mostly with the Lexicon timeline for the Weasley > ages, I did want to point out something that I"m sure Steve would > agree with (but he's on vacation). The Lexicon is not infallible - > - I've seen some people citing it as though it's some JKR-approved > source. Steve is working with the same canon assumptions & the > > same canon holes as the rest of us -- but he includes essays that > make what he believes are the strongest arguments on various > topics. I most certainly concur with what Penny said. The Lexicon is not infallible by any stretch of the imagination. I wish that I had some inside track to Rowling and could verify things etc., but I don't. There is no way, no matter how hard I try, to keep interpretation and assumption out of it. This is especially true as I sort through and choose essays to put online. Since the Weasley ages have again been the subject of debate around here, I have been revisiting the Lexicon's timeline on that subject. I am seriously considering doing a revision or even creating a separate page with some of the options more clearly delineated. I am just not sure about the facts. For example, it seems to me that one error of confusion is the number of years since Gryffindor won the Cup...and which Cup we're talking about. Back to the books, I guess... Steve From drumforever at earthlink.net Fri Aug 16 16:45:42 2002 From: drumforever at earthlink.net (Betty Landers) Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 12:45:42 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Welcome Back Harry (Was - Re: Missing 24hrs - Mark) References: Message-ID: <000501c245ad$f28caec0$6b33323f@bettysue> No: HPFGUIDX 42822 Marc said: > > > about the 24 missing hrs: > > > > > > I am starting to reread SS, and when Harry goes to the Leaky > > > Couldron for the first time, Tom says something to the effect > > > of: > > > > > > "Welcome back Harry Potter, welcome back" or "Good to see you again". > > > > > > I guess his parents *could* have taken him by there when they were > > > alive, but it's very curious that Tom knows and has seen Harry at > > > his pub before. I always took that to mean "Welcome back to the Wizarding world." Whether or not Tom knows exactly where he's been raised, he must know that a pub as essential as the Leaky Cauldron must have been visited by HP if he had been raised in the WW. This sounded a lot clearer and firmer in my head than it does on this page...Perhaps someone more eloquent will phrase it better than I did. Betty From Arcum_Dagsson at celticwind.zzn.com Sat Aug 17 05:36:20 2002 From: Arcum_Dagsson at celticwind.zzn.com (arcum42) Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2002 05:36:20 -0000 Subject: The Clock Says 'Mortal Peril' In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42823 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "bboy_mn" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "yr awen" wrote: > > Heather wrote: > > > > I meant to ask this the first time I saw it here, but forgot, and > > this just reminded me. Do we know for sure if "death" is on the > > clock? In my GoF, it mentions "home", "school", "work", "traveling", > > "lost", "hospital", "prison", and, on the number twelve position, > > "mortal peril". I always figured that "dead" would occupy the number > > twelve position if it was there, and concluded that it must not > > be.<<<<<<<<< > > > > Bboy_mn makes a general comment: > > I'm sure I mistakenly assumed the 'death' location on the clock. > > But it brings up an interesting question; what happens if you die > while in mortal peril? > > Does the clock hand stay stuck on 'mortal peril' forever, until the > family removes the hand from the clock? > > Death after mortal peril would leave the clock with no stimulus; > nothing to make that hand ever move again. > Personally, I always assumed the clock hand would simply fall off if the person died, but there is no canon on that that I'm aware of. Also, what happens if you are in mortal peril while at home? --Arcum From pat_mahony at hotmail.com Sat Aug 17 05:56:52 2002 From: pat_mahony at hotmail.com (Patrick Mahony) Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2002 05:56:52 +0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] The Clock Says 'Mortal Peril' Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42824 The whole issue of the clock does beg the question, why have hand that reads "mortal peril" anyway? The only Weasley member, prior to Harry's Hogwarts experience, who would conceivably be in mortal peril would be Charlie, because he's working with dragons; and even then his parents knew that, and wouldn't have to refer to the clock. I can think of three possibilities as to explaining the clock: 1) A similar clock will appear elsewhere, and be important. Dumbledore would most likely own one; all those gadgets in his office seem to indicate that, 2)One of the Weasleys is in danger of being in unexpected mortal peril, that we don't know about yet; if the clock was bought a long time ago, it could have been when Voldemort was in power. If it was bought later, maybe there is more to Mr Weasley's job then we've been led to believe. 3) The clock was bought after Ginny's experience in CoS. Any other suggestions? Roo _________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com From jkusalavagemd at yahoo.com Sat Aug 17 03:36:09 2002 From: jkusalavagemd at yahoo.com (jkusalavagemd) Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2002 03:36:09 -0000 Subject: Occam's Razor: Oops, I may have cut myself! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42825 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "porphyria_ash" wrote: > I had quoted from the Lexicon: > > > I honestly don't understand exactly what you mean. Are you saying > that Avada Kedavra is not a close enough match for "adhadda > kedhabhra"? Because that simply is a transliteration issue: Aramaic > letters do not correspond to Latin ones exactly and so scholars can > come up with two different Latin alphabet equivalents for the same > Aramaic term depending on the transliteration system they use. > Scholars of Kabbalah agree that Avada Kedavra is the Aramaic for "let > the thing be destroyed." > > It seems clear to me that JKR is indeed up on her scholarship and > fully intended the AV curse to be Aramaic. > > On the other hand, Haggridd, if I've misunderstood the point you were > trying to make I apologize. \. > > ~Porphyria No apology is necessary. I am at fault for not being clear. If "Avada Kedavra" is a correct transliteration of the Aramaic, that is Q.E.D. as far as I am concerned. I have learned something I hadn't known before, for which I thank you. Thank you as well for the links. I will enjoy exploring them. Haggridd From deadstop at wombatzone.com Sat Aug 17 06:31:02 2002 From: deadstop at wombatzone.com (Stacy Stroud) Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2002 02:31:02 -0400 Subject: Rita Skeeter's Article In-Reply-To: <1029558417.2212.80778.m11@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20020817022508.00ad1a70@wombatzone.com> No: HPFGUIDX 42826 Darrin wrote: >But I do have a theory: We know that Molly, Hermione and Ginny have >engaged in quite a bit of girl talk and presumably Ginny and Hermione >probably have as well, which might have been reported back to Molly. There's another factor worth considering here as well. When Harry overhears Mrs. Weasley, Hermione, and Ginny having their girl talk (is this early GoF or an earlier book?), they are specifically giggling over Molly's girlhood misadventures with love potions. Rita's article about Hermione accuses her of using love potions to beguile famous boys (Harry and Viktor). So it's possible that Molly's usual distrust of Rita Skeeter and past experience with Hermione were overshadowed by her quite personal knowledge that young girls sometimes do stupid things with love potions, and perhaps even by the fear that *she'd* been the one to give Hermione the idea. Stacy Stroud (deadstop at wombatzone.com) Hex Entertainment, Inc (http://www.hexgames.com) From crana at ntlworld.com Sat Aug 17 08:24:47 2002 From: crana at ntlworld.com (rosie) Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2002 09:24:47 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] What-NOTT and the DEs / Susan Bones References: Message-ID: <005101c245c7$8d033000$e13668d5@xxx> No: HPFGUIDX 42827 Margaret said: "16) (X) Nott -- A stooped figure in Goyle, Sr's shadow when Voldemort does his DE roll call. Prostrates himself before Voldemort and claims fealty to his master. A post in HPfGU Archives recall that a Nott, Jr. goes through the Sorting Ceremony since Harry's arrival at Hogwarts. This last one has me curious, because the name is thrown in as an aside, much the same way we see Arabella Figg's and Mundungus Fletcher's names get tucked unobtrusively into the tapestry JKR is weaving. So here's my question -- any theories as to what role Nott & family -- or other little-known DEs -- will play in the future storyline?" It's not really related to Nott in particular but I wonder if something similar is going to be revealed about the Bones. Remember Susan Bones in the sorting? In another book (eek, can't remember which, can anyone else?) it says the Bones were killed by DEs. JKR was asked in an interview/chat if there was any connection between them, and JKR answered that the Bones couple killed were Susan's grandparents. Wonder if they'll turn up later? Perhaps they were members of the "Old Crowd"...woo... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From fyredriftwood at yahoo.com Sat Aug 17 05:22:25 2002 From: fyredriftwood at yahoo.com (fyredriftwood) Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2002 05:22:25 -0000 Subject: What-NOTT and the DEs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42828 Margaret's post included: > 5) (X) MacNair -- Cleared of any association with Voldemort following > the Potters' death; executioner for the Ministry and, based on what > Voldemort has to say in GoF, as bloodthirsty an executioner among the > DEs > I would like to add: Prisoner of Azkaban points out a few more facts on MacNair. His first name is Walden (::snicker::) and he's real tight with Lucius Malfoy. He works for the dept. of Disposal of Magical Creatures, showing that he still has a taste for blood and will kill anything... including animals. --Fyre Wood, who would love to get stuck in the Diary with Tom Riddle any time.. oh gosh he's soo hot =) From pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk Sat Aug 17 09:23:14 2002 From: pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk (bluesqueak) Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2002 09:23:14 -0000 Subject: Arthur and Molly's past In-Reply-To: <001b01c24587$206fe220$badef718@kzo.chartermi.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42829 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "yr awen" wrote: > > Corinth: > Dumbledore does not seem the type > to conduct a full assault, soldier-style. Instead, I see him > heading an intelligence unit. Defeat the enemy from the > inside.<<<<<< Hurray! More visitors to The Safe House! (see #40421) > Yr Arwen > You're quite right, I agree. But with the qualification that the "war" with Voldemort wasn't a war in the specific sense of fighting with weapons on a field, but rather a systematic campaign of terror and psychological warfare. The Aurors and Dept. of Mystery- type people seem to me to be more of a police force than a military unit (like a SWAT team versus the National Guard, if you're a US citizen; what the British equivalent would be, I'm not sure.) ........ Pip: The Department of Mystery is, I think, a joke about our Intelligence Services, popularly known as MI5 (internal) and MI6 (external)- which until recently were so deeply secretive that they didn't even officially exist. [They have now admitted that yes, they do exist, and MI5 has proved it by moving into a lovely, new, and *extremely* obvious headquarters on the south bank of the Thames - which has been used (outside shots *only*) in recent James Bond films.] I don't think we really have an Auror equivalent - Armed Response Units in the police might be closest. Or the hotly argued 'shoot-to- kill' policy the British Government might or might not have had vis-a- vis the Irish Republicans could well fit. Yr Arwen: I get this impression from the description of largely domestic violence in the recounting of the past conflict -- for example, the Potters and the Longbottoms are killed/tortured in their own homes, as opposed to a physical battlefield. Pettigrew's curse blows a street apart, taking innocent bystanders out along with Aurors. The feuds between various parties are between families, rather than countries (eg. the Weasleys and Malfoys), and at the conclusion of the war, punishment is meted out in the form of summary court justice, as seen with Crouch, who unhesitatingly condemns his own son. > Pip: Yes. I briefly mentioned this in my original Spying Game post (#39662), where I pointed out that the Voldemort-Potter war owes a lot to the recent 20 year long civil war in the United Kingdom. This mostly took place in Northern Ireland, but often spread out over the whole of the UK. That war was conducted in a series of small raids, often on people's homes, explosions in the middle of a busy street full of innocent bystanders etc. Equally, justice could be pretty summary, with no juries sitting and the case decided by one Judge. Yr Arwen: > Digression... I wonder what the extent of Voldy's campaign was -- if it was specific to the British Isles, or if its effects were felt elsewhere, like the Continent or even in the States. The presence of people like Dholov and Karkaroff indicates that there were people in Europe sympathetic to Voldemort's cause, but Voldemort's motives in his little power struggle seem incredibly opaque. Dumbledore talks of enlisting the aid of the giants and other quasi-humans who might find Voldemort's offer of enfranchisement attractive, but I don't think he ever says, "You know, we should see if the Spanish wizards and witches could help us out" or something like that. Anyway... back to your regularly scheduled program: Pip: If it was like the 'Troubles' (masterpiece of Irish understatement there [grin]) then the DE's would probably have been in contact with similarly minded overseas groups, but each would have been concentrating on disrupting their own country. Which would fit with the Potterverse. Voldemort seems to be basing his strategy on taking control of the British WW. This may well be like Hitler concentrating on taking control of Germany before he turned his mind to the rest of the world. [At least, the only non-British DE we know about is Karkaroff, and the way the not-exactly-free-with-first-names Snape calls him 'Igor' suggests Karkaroff was primarily working in the UK during his DE period (long enough for he and Snape to get on first name terms, anyway).] I've argued before (#40044) that it's beyond belief that the only wizards to come Voldemort's way in Albania (Quirrel, Pettigrew and Bertha Jorkins) just happened to be British. He was *waiting* for Brits - only they would have the sort of information/access he needed. > Yr Arwen: > Given what we know of Dumbledore's tactics in the past war (not much), I'd say that your "intelligence unit" theory is sort of close to what I'm trying, unsuccessfully, to envision. Dumbledore is a great hero, famed for his defeat of Grindelwald and discovery of 12 uses of dragon's blood and all that -- and he's the one wizard Voldemort always feared (maybe because he's not afraid of Voldemort, who thrives on fear.) He's famous, which would make him ill-suited for intelligence work. A strategist is maybe what I'm going for here, one who takes information from *all* fields -- covert intelligence, street talk, government mutterings -- to shape his strategy. Pip: There's strong canon support for Dumbledore using spies. 'Sources' are mentioned in CS, 'spies' in PoA, Snape's undercover career in GoF, etc, etc. As a good spymaster, he would of course listen to rumours and government mutterings as well. Yr Arwen: Yet, the extent to which he is successful in that first conflict is highly in doubt; I don't think the status of the war as of Voldemort's unexpected death (emphasis, 'unexpected') is ever made clear. Are the good guys winning, or was Voldemort's temporary incapacitation a stroke of fortune? > Pip: By the way everyone refuses to mention Voldemort's name; and the reactions displayed in GoF Chapter Nine - The Dark Mark; plus the joy displayed at the very beginning of PS/SS in the WW - the good guys were *losing*, folks. And can you see Peter Pettigrew betraying the Potters out of noble idealism for the 'Purity of Blood' ideal? No? Me neither. He was trying to make a switch to the winning side. > Corinth: > However, he > needs some extremely brave and trustworthy agents for this job. > Unable to trust many of his colleagues/friends in the MoM, and > unable to use aurors whom the Death Eaters would recognize, > Dumbledore turns to Hogwarts.<<<<<<< > Pip: But he couldn't trust *all* his Hogwarts students. Sirius Black in PoA talks about 'a gang of Slytherins who nearly all became Death Eaters [note the 'nearly' - not all Slytherins became DE's.] Hogwarts is only *relatively* isolated from the WW - the students are currently on the same 'sides' that their parents are (or in Harry's case, were). This may change in later books, as the kids get old enough to want to be mentally independent from the views they've inherited. The most likely to switch sides are Draco (simply because he's the *only* DE- by-inheritance we know much about) and one of the Weasley's - probably Ron (that long snit with Harry in GoF and his constant moans about having no money suggest he might a) get angry enough with Harry to consider switching and b)have a motive for thinking that his parents ideals, which have led to their relative poverty, are stupid). Dumbledore's 'old crowd' probably consisted of people he knew very well; some of them would be his old students (from varying Hogwarts 'generations') and some of them his old friends. Yr Arwen: > This would make sense in the context of the very beginning of PS/SS, when McGonagall appears to be completely in the dark regarding Dumbledore's plans for Harry; she mentions that the only reason she's hanging out on Privet Drive was because Hagrid tipped her off. Interesting! > Pip: Deeply, especially since her comments in PoA about *remembering* Dumbledore offering to be the Potter's secret Keeper (p.153 UK hardback) suggest that *before* the Potter's deaths she was very close in Dumbledore's confidence. *After* the Potter's death, though, she wasn't. And Harry may be in her house, but it's *SNAPE* who keeps turning up to try and protect him. Very Interesting! > Corinth: > I believe he is once again beginning an internal battle: determine > who to trust within the MoM, inform officials of the true threat > and gain their loyalty, gain the trust of the giants, possibly > infiltrate the DE ranks (I don't believe Snape is doing this > though; too obvious).<<<<<<<<<< > Yr Arwen: > One would probably say that that's the only way to fight a battle, especially against members of your own community. Fudge and other like-minded individuals strike me as being in a particularly dangerous form of denial. > > Corinth: > I think you misinterpreted my description of Molly's reaction. I > didn't say it implied a lack of courage. It implied a lack of > knowledge. She knew Sirius Black as a murderer and nothing more. > I think she and Arthur will play a large and courageous role in the > coming fight, simply not in the past one.<<<<<<<<<< Yr Arwen: > At this point, I'm wondering if the 'old crowd' constitutes not Dumbledore's "insiders" as you say, in a general sense, but rather the people more intimately connected with the protection of Harry (in addition to his parents.) You have Sirius who was supposed to be the Potters' Secret-Keeper, Lupin the close friend/associate of Sirius and James and who knew of the plans to use the Fidelius Charm, Arabella who is presumably Harry's 'guardian' for the duration of his life on Privet Drive, and then Fletcher, who at this point is an utter mystery and throws my fledgling theory into doubt > Pip: And the Weasley's, who fulfil the same function as Arabella when he's physically away from the Dursley's but not at Hogwarts. To quote from my post #40044:(All page references to GoF UK hardback) "Voldemort remarks that he was "Not yet strong enough to risk kidnap in the midst of a horde of Ministry wizards. ( p. 570 ) Since Harry stays with the Weasley's for nearly two weeks after the QWC, Voldemort obviously doesn't feel strong enough to risk kidnap in the midst of a horde of Weasley's, either. Do you notice that Bill and Charlie Weasley continue to stay at The Burrow for the rest of the school holidays? So that Harry has at least one adult Weasley with him at all times? "Molly, are you going to be all right taking the kids to Kings Cross?" ( p. 143 ) Molly says 'Of course', but later "Bill and Charlie decided to come and see everyone off at Kings Cross Station" ( p. 144.) " End Quote. Since Harry has stayed at The Burrow with only Arthur and Molly there, this looks like Arthur, Molly, Bill and Charlie are all part of the 'Protect the Last of the Potters' society. Pip (more spies, I'm afraid. I do write posts about other things, though.[grin]) From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Sat Aug 17 09:35:26 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2002 09:35:26 -0000 Subject: The Clock Says 'Mortal Peril' In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42830 Roo wrote: > The whole issue of the clock does beg the question, why have hand > that reads "mortal peril" anyway? The only Weasley member, prior to > Harry's Hogwarts experience, who would conceivably be in mortal peril > would be Charlie, because he's working with dragons; and even then > his parents knew that, and wouldn't have to refer to the clock. > I can think of three possibilities as to explaining the clock: > 1) A similar clock will appear elsewhere, and be important. > Dumbledore would most likely own one; all those gadgets in his office > seem to indicate that, > 2)One of the Weasleys is in danger of being in unexpected mortal > peril, that we don't know about yet; if the clock was bought a long > time ago, it could have been when Voldemort was in power. If it was > bought later, maybe there is more to Mr Weasley's job then we've been > led to believe. > 3) The clock was bought after Ginny's experience in CoS. > Any other suggestions? > Roo There is one last suggestion, I think, that was the first I imagined: this sort of clocks are simply made that way; that is, all of them include "mortal peril" at the 12 hour position. Just like they would include "at work" even if you haven't a job. Hope that helps, Grey Wolf From zoomphy at yahoo.com Sat Aug 17 07:56:52 2002 From: zoomphy at yahoo.com (zoomphy) Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2002 07:56:52 -0000 Subject: really odd topic: Polyjuice Potion: Gender? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42831 Is cross-gendered Polyjuicing possible? (I hope I wrote that right.) Say a man named Theo makes Polyjuice potion from the hair of a girl he knows at work, Erin. So Theo appears to be Erin. Jude, Erin's boyfriend, meanders along and sees Erin!Theo and doesn't realize that he's seeing Theo in disguise. Jude is feeling a little randy... Is copulation possible? This is assuming Theo was willing to keep up the charade (for curiosity's sake, of course). Is pregnancy possible? According to the Harry Potter lexicon, Theo would only LOOK like Erin. So I'm thinking no. Say Theo made a polyjuice potion using one of Jude's fingernails, and copulated with Erin, who was completely unaware of her lover's true identity. And say she got pregnant. Would she be carrying Jude's child, or Theo's child? Sorry if this has been discussed, or if it seems a wee bit odd, but it's been one of those days. K. From pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk Sat Aug 17 11:58:11 2002 From: pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk (bluesqueak) Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2002 11:58:11 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore In-Reply-To: <009d01c24574$917e6da0$b49dcdd1@istu757> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42832 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Richelle Votaw" wrote: Richelle: > I have always liked Dumbledore, after all, as JKR said "he's the epitamy of goodness." But there's something that bothers me about him. He seems to give Harry *way* more information than any other student at Hogwarts, but doesn't do much to help him handle it. It's hard to explain, so I'll give a couple of examples. > > 1) In SS/PS, Harry's in the hospital wing. Dumbledore tells him about his mother's sacrifice. Then becomes interested in a bird out the window while Harry wipes away tears on the sheet. Why pretend not to notice? Sure, boys aren't supposed to cry. But can't we get away from that stereotype? Harry's never had a chance to grieve for his parents, let him cry and tell him it's okay. Pip: I think that's probably a cultural difference between the US and the UK. Dumbledore turning away and pretending not to notice is the *best* possible thing for Harry at that time - we really do find things like crying in public horribly embarrassing by the time we get to 11. The Headmaster of our school then giving us a good hug and telling us it's ok to cry would just *double* the embarrassment. *Molly* can get away with giving Harry a good hug, but then Molly's the closest thing to a mother Harry's got - and that's what mother's DO. Richelle: > 2) In GoF, Dumbledore tells Harry all sorts of things that really aren't his business. Such as Neville's parents. If Neville wanted Harry to know he'd have told him. Of course, after four years the topic should have come up. Although I imagine Harry avoids the topic of parents as much as possible. Pip: Dumbledore only tells Harry about Neville's parents when Harry has guessed three-quarters of the truth himself. Probably Dumbledore felt that giving Harry the whole truth was going to be a lot better for both Harry and Neville than a) Harry imagining things even *worse* than the truth or b)trying to find out the truth *from* Neville. The fact that he warns Harry against telling anyone else about the Longbottoms suggests he thinks Harry might well have talked it over with Hermione, Ron or possibly Hagrid. Richelle: > 3) Here's where I have *real* issues with Dumbledore. Harry comes back from the graveyard, port keys back to Hogwarts. Harry is horribley dazed, still hanging on to Cedric's body. Dumbledore picks Harry up and set him on the ground. Harry's swaying on his injured leg, his head is pounding, he feels like he's going to throw up, and is just standing there. All Dumbledore says is "Harry, stay here." But instead Moody/Crouch half pulls, half carries him away to his office and sits him down. Gives him whatever and he drinks it, and things start to clear up for Harry. Fast forward a ways, Dumbledore, McGonagall, and Snape all stupefy Moody. McGonagall's even about to cry, tries to take Harry to the hospital wing. Dumbledore makes him stay, goes on about understanding, etc. Crouch Jr. tells all, Dumbledore is ready to take Harry upstairs. Harry stands up, sways again, realizes that he's shaking. Dumbledore grips his arm and helps him walk. So Dumbledore knows he's hurt. He's been hurt, not to mention traumatized. No one does anything for the boy until he gets to Dumbldore's office and Fawkes fixes his leg and sings a note to strengthen him. > > Would it really have hurt for Snape to whip up a magical pain reliever while he's getting a truth potion anyway? Can't someone *do* something to help? I know Dumbledore's trying to take care of the emotional pain, but he seems to ignore the physical. Unless of course he had instructed Fawkes to do something (or is Fawkes and using a time turner, which is way too complicated to be the key if you ask me) in which case he still let him suffer a while. Is this a "guy" thing or is physical pain just an after thought to him? I've probably got everyone else who's still reading as confused as I am, but every time I think I've figured Dumbledore out and he's such a great guy he goes and does something illogical. Sorry, but I was with Minerva on this one, except I guess prolonging the retelling wouldn've helped. Pip: This does seem to be a WW cultural thing - I've joked before that if a REAL wizard has a choice between letting the patient rest, bringing them a pain-killing potion, or explaining complicated plot points to semi-comatose invalids, they'll go for the plot explanation option *every* time. Wizards just seem to be expected to cope with physical pain. The magic they play around with causes physical injuries quite frequently - Neville's broken wrist, Harry's bones having to be regrown, being splashed with swelling potions. Flitwick uses cushions in one lesson to minimize injuries - is this the result of hard experience? JKR says it herself in GoF p.22 (UK hardback): "It wasn't the pain that bothered him; Harry was no stranger to pain and injury." This about a pain that was earlier described as being "as though somone had just pressed a white-hot wire to his skin." (p.20) Pip From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Sat Aug 17 13:10:54 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2002 13:10:54 -0000 Subject: really odd topic: Polyjuice Potion: Gender? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42833 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "zoomphy" wrote: > Is cross-gendered Polyjuicing possible? (I hope I wrote that right.) Yes, it is possible: Crouch Jr.'s mother polyjuiced into him, and he intop her, to get him out of Azkaban, so canon demonstrates that cross-gender is possible. > > Is copulation possible? This is assuming Theo was willing to keep up > the charade (for curiosity's sake, of course). Is pregnancy possible? > According to the Harry Potter lexicon, Theo would only LOOK like > Erin. So I'm thinking no. > > Say Theo made a polyjuice potion using one of Jude's fingernails, and > copulated with Erin, who was completely unaware of her lover's true > identity. And say she got pregnant. Would she be carrying Jude's > child, or Theo's child? > > Sorry if this has been discussed, or if it seems a wee bit odd, but > it's been one of those days. > > K. There is a big problem with this sort of thing. Normally, this kind of magic (in other fantasy worlds) is illusion-based. That is, although you *look* like someone else, you're really the original person that looks (and feels to the other senses) differently, but it's like you're wearing heavy make-up. Most of the times (I've seen this in other books), this is stressed by the fact that the change is inmediate, and the *eyes are still the same the original had*. Unfortunately, neither of these thigs happen in the polyjuice potion: you *grow* into the person you turn into (notice how Harry had to loose his shoes and his clothes were broken), and the change is total. Thus, I'd better explore both possibilities, for the sake of completeness (since I can't decide which is the correct one): Option A: ADN-transformation: ----------------------------- If you turn into a clone of the original, copulating would be possible, and possibly getting pregnant would be, too. However, you would misscarriage within the hour, since the person you're polyjuicing into isn't pregnant herself, so you'd change into the non-pregnant version of her. A woman turning into a man could help another woman to become pregnant, too. Speaking of which, and before anyone asks, I don't think that polyjuicing into a pregnant woman would make you pregnant, since the baby is a different person. Unless you happened to take tissue from the fetus, he/she wouldn't be included in the potion. (and if you include the tissue of the fetus, you'd probably die, since you won't have a mother around you to feed you, give you air, etc.) In this case, however, if a man turns into another, has (unsafe) sex, and the woman involved becomes pregnant, the ADN would be the one of the person he has polyjuiced into. The same works for a woman that polyjuices into another woman (half of the ADN of the children is that of the woman you've polyjuiced into), although it would probably misscarriage, since they would have to be compatible for the fetus to survive. Option B: Illusion Transformation --------------------------------- If by polyjuicing you are still the same but the potion fools the senses to believe you're another person, turning from man into a woman means that copulating would still be possible, but there is no way you can become pregnant, since you're still, for biological purposes, a man. The same is true for a woman turning into a man. In this case, however, polyjuicing into a pregnant woman would work, since you've only got to *look* pregnant, but (my guess is that) the pseudo-fetus wouldn't go into labor, although it might kick. Finally, a man polyjuicing into another man or a woman into another woman, and becoming pregnant during the festrivities, you'd still be using your real ADN, not the one of the prerson you've polyjuiced into. Disclaimer: All of the above is my own theory. There is no canon, and possibly will never be, to decide one way or the other, so in this case your opinion is as good as mine. Opinions and corrections welcomed. May contain traces of nuts. Hope that helps, Grey Wolf, who know understands why the potion belongs to the restricted section, and who hopes he's got all the technical English words correct. From midgiecat at aol.com Sat Aug 17 13:22:22 2002 From: midgiecat at aol.com (midgiecat at aol.com) Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2002 09:22:22 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Rowling Update Message-ID: <33.2ba75634.2a8fa80e@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 42834 Subject: Rowling Update Just thought all HPFGU fans might like to know that on a recent TV broadcast of Hollywood Squares the question was as follows: Queens Elizabeth II is the richest woman in Great Britain. Who is the second richest? Answer: JK Rowling, the writer of four Harry Potter books. Brenda Wendelken [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From abigailnus at yahoo.com Sat Aug 17 14:50:38 2002 From: abigailnus at yahoo.com (abigailnus) Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2002 14:50:38 -0000 Subject: The Clock Says 'Mortal Peril'....ooowww my stomach hurts. In-Reply-To: <000f01c24597$4d3cbe80$43a1cdd1@istu757> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42835 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Richelle Votaw" wrote: > Well, I had always thought that maybe the hand would just disappear if they > were dead. But then when Harry, Hermione and the Weasleys return to the > Burrow after the Quidditch game Mrs. Weasley comes running out of the house > saying "Arthur--I've been so worried--so worried." "You're all right . . . > you're alive . . . oh boys . . . " and then proceeds to practically strangle > Fred and George hugging them. It sounds like she was passing the time > reading the Daily Prophet wondering if they were alive, not looking at the > clock to see. Which has me a little confused, to say the least. Anybody > care to explain? > > Richelle 40168 I'm surprised no-one's mentioned this before, but a few weeks ago Elkins posted a very long and interesting post about canon in support of Arthus Weasly with Imperius. At the end of this post she also listed canon in support of the Missing Weasly Child theory, and had this to say about the famous clock: <.) I think Elkins' explanation works even without the missing Weasly child. The Weaslys must have gone through a trying time in the previous war - Arthur must have been hard at work in the ministry, Molly having to worry about a steadily increasing number of small children (with the exception of Ginny, and dependant on definitive evidence on Bill and Charlie's ages, it is quite likely that all Weasly children were born during Voldemort's reign of terror.) God knows how many nights she spent watching that clock and hoping it wouldn't tell her that someone she loved was in danger. And now, after 14 years of quiet, when all she'd had to think about when watching the clock were the Home, Work and School settings, the dark mark suddenly reappears. Is it surprising that she can't quite force herself to check the clock, to admit that the dark days may have returned? Abigail From rvotaw at i-55.com Sat Aug 17 15:04:44 2002 From: rvotaw at i-55.com (Richelle Votaw) Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2002 10:04:44 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] What-NOTT and the DEs / Susan Bones References: <005101c245c7$8d033000$e13668d5@xxx> Message-ID: <00bf01c245ff$6c924ee0$f99ecdd1@istu757> No: HPFGUIDX 42836 > Margaret said: > So here's my question -- any theories as to what role Nott & family -- > or other little-known DEs -- will play in the future storyline?" I think that perhaps JKR threw in a few names, such as Nott, to familiarize us with them as they will be prominent later on. Sort of a dividing up between the "good guys," the "bad guys" and the either "bad or stupid guys" (like Fudge). I don't suppose anyone cares to know that the verb noto in Latin means mark or scar? ;) Well, as a DE I suppose Nott has one, so that wouldn't be much of a revelation anyway! Rosie writes: > It's not really related to Nott in particular but I wonder if something similar is going to be revealed about the Bones. Remember Susan Bones in the sorting? In another book (eek, can't remember which, can anyone else?) it says the Bones were killed by DEs. JKR was asked in an interview/chat if there was any connection between them, and JKR answered that the Bones couple killed were Susan's grandparents. > > Wonder if they'll turn up later? Perhaps they were members of the "Old Crowd"...woo... I think it's highly likely that Susan Bones *parents* will join the fight against Voldemort, since his parents were killed by Voldemort. And her grandparents probably were part of the old crowd. At least I get the general impression that those killed (the McKinnons, the Bones, the Prewetts and others) were all part of "the old crowd." But the ones that survived Voldemort's reign must unite together, recruit others, and fight again. Richelle From rvotaw at i-55.com Sat Aug 17 15:10:45 2002 From: rvotaw at i-55.com (Richelle Votaw) Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2002 10:10:45 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Dumbledore References: Message-ID: <00c601c24600$43ec5020$f99ecdd1@istu757> No: HPFGUIDX 42837 > Pip: > I think that's probably a cultural difference between the US and the > UK. Dumbledore turning away and pretending not to notice is the > *best* possible thing for Harry at that time - we really do find > things like crying in public horribly embarrassing by the time we get > to 11. > *Molly* can get away with giving Harry a good hug, but then Molly's > the closest thing to a mother Harry's got - and that's what mother's > DO. Well, all right then. I'll let it slide. It does fit in with Harry wishing Ron would look away but not seeming concerned that Hermione was there too. She's a girl, so it's okay to cry as far as she's concerned I guess. But Dumbledore did step between Harry and Molly the first time she came running at him. And somehow I really don't think she wanted to question him about the night's events. It's just not like her. Of course, Ron and Hermione probably would have. > Pip: > This does seem to be a WW cultural thing - I've joked before that if > a REAL wizard has a choice between letting the patient rest, bringing > them a pain-killing potion, or explaining complicated plot points to > semi-comatose invalids, they'll go for the plot explanation option > *every* time. Is this part of the "pain unites the mind and body" view? I've heard that before somewhere in connection with the Cruciatus curse. That you end up stronger because of it or something. And in non HP situations I've heard people say that nothing unites the body and mind like pain. Whatever. I don't like pain anyway, I'll just stay ununified, than you. :) Richelle From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Sat Aug 17 15:12:39 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2002 15:12:39 -0000 Subject: What-NOTT and the DEs / Susan Bones In-Reply-To: <00bf01c245ff$6c924ee0$f99ecdd1@istu757> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42838 > Richelle Votaw wrote: > I think it's highly likely that Susan Bones *parents* will join the > fight against Voldemort, since his parents were killed by Voldemort. > And her grandparents probably were part of the old crowd. At least I > get the general impression that those killed (the McKinnons, the > Bones, the Prewetts and others) were all part of "the old crowd." > But the ones that survived Voldemort's reign must unite together, > recruit others, and fight again. > > Richelle I, on the other hand, don't think so. My impression of the "old gang", as a Safe House->MAGIC DISHWASHER follower is that they were a group of spies working for Dumbledore, and as such they weren't as famous as the MoM fighters. I'd imagine that most of the families destroyed during the Reign of Terror were Auror's families, as a way of forcing those people out of the game (just as terrorists all over the world target the families of policemen and army officers). Of course, any time Voldemort discovered one of the old gang thanks to his own spies, he'd kill them too, but I don't think it was as common: they weren't as public, nor as well known as the Aurors and MoM officials, and they were a smaller group too: less than a hundred surely, and I don't think they top 40, either (although I'm less sure of that number). Hope that helps, Grey Wolf From bdmorrp at budget.state.ny.us Sat Aug 17 15:55:08 2002 From: bdmorrp at budget.state.ny.us (erisedstraeh2002) Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2002 15:55:08 -0000 Subject: Lily *Did* Scream and Happy Thoughts Conjure a Patronus Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42839 A couple of weeks ago, Richelle questioned the accuracy of the scene in the movie that JKR personally added which shows Lily screaming when Voldemort hits her with the AK. In flipping through PoA last night, I actually found a straightforward answer to this question! In Chapter 9, during the Quidditch match against Hufflepuff, when the Dementors show up and Harry starts re-living his parents' final moments, it reads "A shrill voice was laughing, the woman was *screaming*, and Harry knew no more" (p. 179). On a different subject...my kids were watching Peter Pan this morning, and it struck me that in order for Wendy and her brothers to fly, they have to think "happy thoughts." I wonder whether this is where JKR got the idea for a wizard needing to think of a happy thought in order to conjure a patronus? Cheers, Phyllis From bdmorrp at budget.state.ny.us Sat Aug 17 16:07:30 2002 From: bdmorrp at budget.state.ny.us (erisedstraeh2002) Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2002 16:07:30 -0000 Subject: Harry's Holly Wand Connotating Christmas Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42840 Felicia wrote: > May we assume therefore that it was just the luck of the draw > that Harry got the wand that was Voldemort's twin then, and that it > is a coincidence that both are made out of wood associated in some > form with death i.e. *Holly and Yew*, and that Lily Potter's wand > was good for charm work and James's wand better for transfiguration > by more arbitrary selection? Now me: My theory on why JKR chose holly as Harry's wand wood is because holly is associated with Christmas, and I am of the belief that Harry is meant to save the wizarding world from evil as Christ was sent to save the world from evil. We had a recent discussion about how in each book, something significant happens on Halloween, but something significant also happens each Christmas. In PS/SS, Harry receives the invisibility cloak; in CoS, Harry, Ron and Hermione drink the Polyjuice Potion; in PoA, Harry receives the Firebolt and in GoF, there's the Yule Ball and Hagrid revealing himself as a half-giant. Laurel is a wood associated with Mars/Ares, the gods of war, so I'm wondering whether we might see a baddie with a laurel wand in a future book (perhaps the former Professor Romulus J. Lupin, Remus' brother, that I theorized might have previously owned the battered briefcase)? ~Phyllis who agrees with JKR that those who say her books are anti- Christian "haven't read them properly" From yrawen at ontheqt.org Sat Aug 17 16:20:14 2002 From: yrawen at ontheqt.org (yr awen) Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2002 12:20:14 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Clock Says 'Mortal Peril'....ooowww my stomach hurts. References: Message-ID: <003201c24609$f847cbe0$badef718@kzo.chartermi.net> No: HPFGUIDX 42841 Abigail wrote: I'm surprised no-one's mentioned this before, but a few weeks ago Elkins posted a very long and interesting post about canon in support of Arthus Weasly with Imperius. At the end of this post she also listed canon in support of the Missing Weasly Child theory, and had this to say about the famous clock:<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Ahh, thank you for pointing that out to us new-type people :-) I went back and devoured Elkins' post (very good with ketchup), sort of sat there for a moment, then stood up, banged my fist on my desktop and shouted, "By Jove! I think she's on to something!" Well, I didn't really do *that*, but the mental reaction was comparable :-0 Abigail: God knows how many nights she spent watching that clock and hoping it wouldn't tell her that someone she loved was in danger. And now, after 14 years of quiet, when all she'd had to think about when watching the clock were the Home, Work and School settings, the dark mark suddenly reappears. Is it surprising that she can't quite force herself to check the clock, to admit that the dark days may have returned?<<<<<<<<<<< I was thinking about the lack of a 'death' place-marker on the clock (in relation to someone else's post about it), and it struck me as incongruous, in a terrible way, that of all the other locations given, 'mortal peril' is the only abstract one. School, hospital, prison, etc. are all grounded in absolute physical location -- eg. Hogwarts, St. Mungo's, Azkaban (????? Whoa!) -- but one can be in mortal peril conceivably anywhere. If one of the Weasleys is in mortal peril while at work/school, or whatever, how does the clock know what to choose? I'm thinking here of Ron, who has definitely been in a few mortal situations of the perilous sort since his arrival at Hogwarts, but the only ones his parents seem to know anything about are Ginny's entrapment in the Chamber of Secrets and Ron and Harry's excursion to the Forbidden Forest. His defeat of McGonagall's chess set is fairly well-advertised after the fact (Percy brags on him at the awarding of the House Cup), but his parents never mention it. Again, quite curious. I wonder what the elder Weasleys' reactions were, upon finding out about that. If they did... but I can't imagine Percy, or Fred and George for that matter, keeping his mouth shut. This leads me to think that maybe the grandfather clock is an old family item in use during Voldemort's former terror spree, but was put in storage after his defeat and recently brought out again due to Arthur's (or Molly's) worry that things are heating up -- possibly as a direct result of the QWC debacle. In his first trip to the Burrow in CoS, Harry doesn't notice it; he notices the small, somewhat more pedestrian clock on the kitchen wall instead, which doesn't quite make sense to me. The locations on the grandfather clock itself seem applicable to wartime concerns; Molly would definitely want to know that Bill and Charlie are safe at school. But hospital? PRISON??? (Again, shades of Azkaban!) MORTAL PERIL????? I can't imagine that it's something I would want to look at in peacetime, especially a peace that seems guaranteed to be Voldemort-free for quite some time. It is something, though, that I think would be pulled out when it becomes apparent that a battle's on the horizon. Cannot... leave... well... enough... alone.... This goes back to Elkins' theory on Imperio!Arthur (which, I think, was so satisfying it took the place of breakfast): What if Arthur, as a result of being under the Imperius Curse, had to spend time in Azkaban awaiting trial and eventual acquittal? In his conversation with Molly in PoA4 (US paperback), there's a sort of telling pause at the end of Arthur's rant on Black's escaping: "Black lost everything the night Harry stopped You-Know-Who, and he's had twelve years alone in Azkaban to brood on that...." There was a silence. Harry leaned still closer to the door, desperate to hear more. Maybe Arthur was reflecting on his own time in Azkaban, thinking about how it might have been a life sentence for him if he hadn't been acquitted -- possibly because of Mad-Eye Moody's intercession, as others have theorized, in breaking the Imperius Curse or otherwise helping Arthur out. The Weasleys strike me as being law-abiding citizens, with the exception of Arthur's illicit Muggle-artifact hobby. Further, I think Azkaban is the only wizard prison mentioned (although what you do for mid-grade criminals, halfway between exploding dustbins and being a Death Eater is in doubt); at least, in CoS when Hagrid is taken away, there doesn't seem to be any question that that's where he was going, even as a temporary 'precaution.' HF. -- www.ontheqt.org eth.pitas.com Habent sua fata libelli. /Books have their own destiny.\ + terentianus maurus + [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk Sat Aug 17 16:40:27 2002 From: pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk (bluesqueak) Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2002 16:40:27 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore In-Reply-To: <00c601c24600$43ec5020$f99ecdd1@istu757> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42842 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Richelle Votaw" wrote: Richelle: > But Dumbledore did step between Harry and Molly the first time she > came running at him. And somehow I really don't think she wanted > to question him about the night's events. It's just not like her. > Of course, Ron and Hermione probably would have. Pip: Nooo, but as her reaction to the The Quiddich World Cup Dark Mark shows, Molly tends to express extreme anxiety/relief verbally. It's quite likely she would have given Harry a version of the 'you're alive, I've been so worried' speech that she gives Gred and Forge. Later in the paragraph it says: "Harry felt an inexpressible sense of gratitude to Dumbledore for asking the others not to question him. It wasn't as though he didn't want them there..." So again, Dumbledore's reading Harry quite well - he wants his friends and his surrogate mother *there*, but not to talk. He just wants them to be there. > > > Pip: > > This does seem to be a WW cultural thing - I've joked before that > > if a REAL wizard has a choice between letting the patient rest, > > bringing them a pain-killing potion, or explaining complicated > > plot points to semi-comatose invalids, they'll go for the plot > > explanation option*every* time. > Richelle: > Is this part of the "pain unites the mind and body" view? I've > heard that before somewhere in connection with the Cruciatus > curse. That you end up stronger because of it or something. Pip: Ah. Yes. 'Cruciatus makes you stronger.' This was floated by Captain Cindy of TBAY fame (CindySphynx)in post # 40401. Elkins and I thought it was rubbish. Anyway, we had a full and frank exchange of views about it, where I dunked Cindy in the BAY (post #40476)and Elkins called her 'demented' (post #40480). [And some day Cindy's going to get back at me...] See #40492 for Cindy's [very funny] final word on the subject. Richelle: > And in non HP situations I've heard people say that nothing unites > the body and mind like pain. Pip: Only in the sense that it tends to concentrate the mind wonderfully on *stopping* the pain. [Sarcasm on] Have these people tried red hot pokers? Electrodes in delicate places? [Sarcasm off] Richelle: Whatever. I don't like pain anyway, I'll just stay ununified, than you. :) Me likewise. [grin] Pip [who think wizards (and witches) try to ignore pain because REAL wizards are 'Tough'. Pip, on the other hand, believes that REAL Pips are 'Wimps'. Could someone pass me the asprin, please?] Squeak! From rvotaw at i-55.com Sat Aug 17 17:04:24 2002 From: rvotaw at i-55.com (Richelle Votaw) Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2002 12:04:24 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Lily *Did* Scream and Happy Thoughts Conjure a Patronus References: Message-ID: <000c01c24610$24326a20$a29ecdd1@istu757> No: HPFGUIDX 42843 Phyllis writes: > A couple of weeks ago, Richelle questioned the accuracy of the scene > in the movie that JKR personally added which shows Lily screaming > when Voldemort hits her with the AK. In flipping through PoA last > night, I actually found a straightforward answer to this question! > In Chapter 9, during the Quidditch match against Hufflepuff, when the > Dementors show up and Harry starts re-living his parents' final > moments, it reads "A shrill voice was laughing, the woman was > *screaming*, and Harry knew no more" (p. 179). Mmm, yes, I noticed that upon rereading. I have three solutions. The first is more logical. Harry is at this point about to pass out, so he's probably fading. He *could* be hearing her continue to scream pleas as Voldemort laughs, but due to the fact that he *is* about to pass out, can't make out the words anymore. The second solution is also logical, but don't really like it anyhow. After Harry no longer hears the pleas from Lily "Not Harry, not Harry, please. . ." and so on, and the "Stand asides" are over from Voldemort, he laughs and raises his wand to cast the AK. Lily screams as he starts to raise his wand, but as soon as it hits her she's dead. The third solution isn't as logical, but I like it best anyway. :) Harry hears the voices, hears Voldemort laugh, and then Lily screams as she is being hit with the AK. The reason she has time to scream is that she is somehow, some way, resisting the AK. Only for a few seconds, but she is resisting. Perhaps this resistance adds to the protection left on Harry and builds his resistance to the unforgivables (i.e. Imperious, which he instinctively resists, though only partially successful on the first attempt). Also, whether the scene in the film is or isn't approved by JKR, if you watch it at half speed there are four distinct flashes from Voldemort's wand to Lily. Whatever that may or may not mean. And no, I haven't watched the entire movie at half speed, just that scene. :) Richelle From prefectmarcus at yahoo.com Sat Aug 17 17:14:10 2002 From: prefectmarcus at yahoo.com (prefectmarcus) Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2002 17:14:10 -0000 Subject: Occam's 24 hours Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42844 There is a very simple, logical explaination for the time lag between midnight 31 Oct and midnight 1 Nov. It is known in Dumbledore's circle that Voldemort is after the Potters. They arrange for the F. Charm. All this is well and good, but Dumbledore is a cautious man. He knows somebody is passing info back to Voldemort. He is never one to put all his eggs in one basket, so he arranges for a discreet watch to be placed on the Potter home. It might be magical like a crystal ball. It might be living. The F. Charm is the first line of defense. The watch is the second. Around midnight, Voldemort shows up and murders the Potters so quickly that the watch has no time to react, other than to notify Dumbledore something is happening. By the time Dumbledore tunes in, either through a device or pops there through via a portkey, the deed is done, the Potters are dead, and a baby is crying in the middle of the wreckage. Now, at this point Dumbledore has a ton of things to do: 1) Rescue Harry 2) Arrange for Harry's living. Even though there are many magical families who would be more than happy to take care of him, he decides on the Dursleys for the reasons outlined in HP1-1, and the "old magic" that Voldemort refers to in GoF. This, of course, requires him to go against Sirius's claim as Godfather, but Dumbledore is suspecting him of being the spy. Whatever arrangements Dumbledore makes can easily be unmade if Sirius proves innocent. 3) He has to arrange with the MoM for the Dursley's to become Harry's guardians. 4) He has to arrange with the muggles for the Dursley's to become Harry's guardians. I suspect he outlines this in the letter to the Dursleys. This could be the reason why the Dursleys kept Harry. Can you imagine Vernon Dursley explaining to the authorities that a Wizard had messed with their records? So, as Petunia says, they were "stuck" with him. 5) He has to invoke the "old magic" for Harry's protection. 6) He has to persuade somebody to give up 15 or more years of their life to be Harry's protector in the muggle world. 7) He has to arrange for that somebody to move into a house near the Dursleys. So, first things first. He has to rescue Harry. The house is a total wreck. There are some very heavy timbers that need to be moved delicately so the baby is not harmed. Who better than Mister Walking Crane himself, Hagrid -- a man known for extreme tenderness towards helpless (and not so helpless) creatures. So Dumbledore tells Hagrid to rescue Harry and to meet him at #4 Privet Drive, Little Whining, Surrey tomorrow night at midnight. He also tells Hagrid to be as discreet about it as possible. (Voldemort may or may not be vanquished, and even if he was, there are still the Deatheaters.) Dumbledore takes off to do the rest of his task-list. Hagrid is in a bind. He has to get to Godric Hollow as quickly as possible. He also has to arrange to go to Privet Drive. And he has to make it back to Hogwarts. He is not allowed to do magic. These are troubled times. Hogwarts is one of the few places safe. A system to keep track of the faculty when outside Hogwarts' walls has to be in place. The most likely person delegated to be in charge of this is the deputy Headmistress, McGonagall. So Hagrid goes to her. He tells her that Dumbledore has ordered him to go to Godric's Hollow immediately and to meet him at Privet Drive midnight the next day. Why he needs to do this, he doesn't say, and she doesn't ask. Such are the times they are living in. She arranges magic transport for Hagrid to Godric's Hollow, transport to Privet Drive, and likely transport back to Hogwarts, though Dumbledore might likely be able to provide that. I suspect a series of Portkeys to be kept in that many- pocketed coat of Hagrid's. Hagrid pops to Godric Hollow and rescues Harry just as Sirius arrives. They have their argument about who gets Harry, then Sirius offers Hagrid his bike. He can do that much for his godson. Now Hagrid was never one to turn down an opportunity to do something magical. Plus he has to lay low for a while. Plus, if McGonagall had given him a portkey to a safehouse, he could save for later when he wanted to get away. He takes the bike and makes it as far as Wales or Cornwall before dawn. In the meantime, McGonagall has gone back to bed, or tried to. The rumors start flying. Voldemort destroyed. He succeeded in killing James and Lily, but not Harry. Etc., etc., etc. Hogwarts is a center of Anti-Voldemort activities. She being the Deputy Headmistress with Dumbledore away, is awaken and told them all. The rumors are very interesting, especially since she knows something is going on involving, Hagrid, Dumbledore, Godric Hollow, and #4 Privet Drive. She decides to see for herself. She knows that Dumbledore will be at Privet Drive at midnight. He could very well be there sooner. So she pops down there herself to see what is happening. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Now, can anybody find any holes? Marcus From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Sat Aug 17 17:49:48 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2002 17:49:48 -0000 Subject: Occam's 24 hours In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42845 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "prefectmarcus" wrote: > > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > Now, can anybody find any holes? > > Marcus No, most of it, as you've already pointed out, is according to Occam's razor. However, you've stopped at the most intresting part: What does Hagrid do during the day with Harry? At first, I used to think, just as you do, that Hagrid is perfectly capable of taking care of Harry himself, but a few other listees mentioned that Hagrid isn't really suited to take care of babies (no experience), and point out that, except in Norbert's case, he hasn't had much luck in taking care of creatures. (I don't really agree with that, but I do agree that Hagrid has no experience with babies, which is not the sort of thing Dumbledore would overlook). Thus, when Meg suggested that maybe Hagrid had been ordered to take Harry to a person we know for a fact that can take care of children very well: Molly Weasley, I changed my own theory. It makes even more sense than assigning Hagrid with the task of taking care of Harry, and it fits the theory quite well: check post #42568 for a TBAYed, complete version of the theory. Hope that helps, Grey Wolf, who would like to ask fellow listees (especially mothers) at what age does a baby stop taking breastmilk. From rvotaw at i-55.com Sat Aug 17 18:06:54 2002 From: rvotaw at i-55.com (Richelle Votaw) Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2002 13:06:54 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Occam's 24 hours References: Message-ID: <001301c24618$faaa0100$939ccdd1@istu757> No: HPFGUIDX 42846 > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "prefectmarcus" wrote: > > > > > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > Now, can anybody find any holes? Bravo, wonderful job. Grey Wolf writes: > No, most of it, as you've already pointed out, is according to Occam's > razor. However, you've stopped at the most intresting part: What does > Hagrid do during the day with Harry? At first, I used to think, just as > Thus, when Meg suggested that maybe Hagrid had been ordered to take > Harry to a person we know for a fact that can take care of children > very well: Molly Weasley, I changed my own theory. It makes even more Yep, gotta be Molly Weasley. > Grey Wolf, who would like to ask fellow listees (especially mothers) at > what age does a baby stop taking breastmilk. Well, it all depends on the mother and at what point she decides to wean the baby. Some as early as 6 months or before, some as late as 2 years or later. I know many people who've done both. Many mothers continue to nurse their babies past a year for two reasons. 1) Doctors say it helps health wise later on in life. 2) It's very comforting to the baby and creates a bond between baby and mother. But your point is? I think I know, but I'll let you devulge. :) Richelle From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Sat Aug 17 19:19:37 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2002 19:19:37 -0000 Subject: Occam's 24 hours In-Reply-To: <001301c24618$faaa0100$939ccdd1@istu757> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42847 Richelle Votaw wrote: > > Grey Wolf, who would like to ask fellow listees (especially > > mothers) at what age does a baby stop taking breastmilk. > > Well, it all depends on the mother and at what point she decides to > wean the baby. Some as early as 6 months or before, some as late as > 2 years or later. I know many people who've done both. Many mothers > continue to nurse their babies past a year for two reasons. 1) > Doctors say it helps health wise later on in life. 2) It's very > comforting to the baby and creates a bond between baby and mother. > But your point is? I think I know, but I'll let you devulge. :) > > Richelle My suggestion, as Richelle has probably guessed, is that Harry was fed by Molly *directly* when he was there (being 1 year and three months, it falls within the timeframe she has suggested and that I'm assuming correct). She could have enough milk if we push Ginny's birthday (which the Lexicon situates c. 1992) to midsummer-early autumn, 1991 (which makes sense, since she entered a year after Harry and co, to have been born a year later). At that time, Molly would have been breast-feeding both Ron and Ginny, and she would have abundant milk, since Ginny had been recently born, so she could also feed Harry. As Richelle suggests, this would create the kind of bond that exists between Molly and Harry almost certainly, and would've helped calm a very pained, nervous baby boy who had just surved an AK and a house falling in ruins around him, as well as the loss of his parents. Also, as Meg already suggested, it could be one of the reasons why Ron and Harry conected so well when they first met (although I've never heard any scientific proof to this, there are stories in my cuntry about milk-brothers, and the sort of bounds this creates between them, and Meg suggest that such ideas also exist in America), although I'm not as positive about this last point. Hope that helps, Grey Wolf From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Sat Aug 17 19:21:40 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2002 19:21:40 -0000 Subject: Correction Re: Occam's 24 hours In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42848 Sorry for the one liner, but the years for Ginny's birth should read 1981 and 82, not 91 and 92, obviously. Sorry for that, Grey Wolf From prefectmarcus at yahoo.com Sat Aug 17 19:57:18 2002 From: prefectmarcus at yahoo.com (prefectmarcus) Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2002 19:57:18 -0000 Subject: Occam's 24 hours In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42849 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "grey_wolf_c" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "prefectmarcus" wrote: > > > > > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > Now, can anybody find any holes? > > > > Marcus > > No, most of it, as you've already pointed out, is according to Occam's > razor. However, you've stopped at the most intresting part: What does > Hagrid do during the day with Harry? At first, I used to think, just as > you do, that Hagrid is perfectly capable of taking care of Harry > himself, but a few other listees mentioned that Hagrid isn't really > suited to take care of babies (no experience), and point out that, > except in Norbert's case, he hasn't had much luck in taking care of > creatures. (I don't really agree with that, but I do agree that Hagrid > has no experience with babies, which is not the sort of thing > Dumbledore would overlook). > > Thus, when Meg suggested that maybe Hagrid had been ordered to take > Harry to a person we know for a fact that can take care of children > very well: Molly Weasley, I changed my own theory. It makes even more > sense than assigning Hagrid with the task of taking care of Harry, and > it fits the theory quite well: check post #42568 for a TBAYed, complete > version of the theory. > > Hope that helps, > > Grey Wolf, who would like to ask fellow listees (especially mothers) at > what age does a baby stop taking breastmilk. Yes, you are right. Hagrid could have taken care of Harry by himself, or he could have dropped him off at the Weasleys' for the day while he sacked out on the sofa. (Poor sofa!) It would also explain her reaction when she meets Harry for the first(?) time. I've always thought her choice of words at that time were interesting though I could never put my finger on why they bothered me so. It would also explain why she feels so maternal to him if she knew him and took care of him when he was just an orphaned infant. The important point is, Hagrid had to have a place to lie low. It could have been the Weasleys' or Figg's or Lupin's or any number of places involving people we've not met yet. Yes, I do like Molly getting involved, and it does fit her reaction in book one. It would also explain her mothering him. Her reaction to him is never one of "The Famous Harry Potter." It is always that of a mother. Marcus P.S.: Babies are weaned from mother's milk anywhere from day one to as late as age six in some cultures. P.M. From DaveH47 at mindspring.com Sat Aug 17 20:33:08 2002 From: DaveH47 at mindspring.com (Dave Hardenbrook) Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2002 13:33:08 -0700 Subject: Sirius, "Field Elves" and Assorted DE's Message-ID: <6572993430.20020817133308@mindspring.com> No: HPFGUIDX 42850 A few comments and things I've notcied: -- In _CoS_, when Fudge is about to drag Hagrid off to Azkaban, he gives Hagrid this lip service about it's being "Just a precaution" and "For a short time only"... I was just wondering if someone possibly gave Sirius a similar line, then threw him in the hole and forgot about him? -- I was wondering: Does the term "House Elf" imply the existance of "Field Elves"? And if in a Old South parallel these Field Elves are even more repressed and drowntrodden than the HE's, then are *these* folks the ones Hermione should really be rallying to the cause of Freedom and Elfish Welfare? -- Margaret wrote: > 1) Lucius Malfoy -- (borrowing from 'Oh Brother') He's the pater > familius for Narcissa & Draco. Harbors intense dislike of Muggle- > born wizards (could be said of all DEs?), intense loathing of Arthur > Weasley (in particular) and family. Maintains and circulates an > illegal collection of Dark Arts items, not the least of which was Tom > Riddle's diary. I still really want to know what the real story/motivation behind the Diary was... And will Voldy come down hard on his "Slippery friend" when he finds out about it... Should we wonder what he really meant when he used the word "slippery"? > 2 & 3) (X) Crabbe, Sr. & (X) Goyle, Sr. -- Based on what we see when > Voldemort returns (GoF), as dense as their offspring. Destined no doubt in the next three books to serve as "Orson and Seymour" to Voldy's "Witchiepoo" (i.e. bumbling "comic relief" lackies.) > 4) Barty Crouch, Jr. -- ... Irritated that Voldemort > seemingly "forgave" the DEs who weren't sent to Azkaban or who hadn't > made more effort to restore Voldemort to power. Just curious -- Could this "irritation" be the reason he resolved to kill Harry himself? Could he be so annoyed with his boss as to make an attempt to undermine him by doing something even he couldn't? > 5) (X) MacNair -- Cleared of any association with Voldemort following > the Potters' death; executioner for the Ministry and, based on what > Voldemort has to say in GoF, as bloodthirsty an executioner among the > DEs Probably doomed to die a horrific death when Hagrid sets a hydra on him! (If you know what happens when you try to decapitate a hydra, you'll get what I'm driving at.) :) > 6) The (X) LeStranges -- Husband & wife duo imprisoned in Azkaban for > crimes committed in service to Voldemort. Sentenced to Azkaban for > their a role in torturing Frank Longbottom and his wife with the > Cruciatus Curse. Mrs. Lestrange last seen impersonating a children's author of a book entitled, "The Legend of Rah and the Muggles". > 11) (X) Travers -- Murdered the McKinnons (GoF / Pensieve) Is it just a grisly coincidence that these names are so close to the married actors Bill Travers and Virginia McKenna? > 16) (X) Nott -- A stooped figure in Goyle, Sr's shadow when Voldemort > does his DE roll call. Possible descendant serving aboard the deep space mining ship _Red Dwarf_ as bullying prison guard and brutal batterer of Cats. -- Dave From prefectmarcus at yahoo.com Sat Aug 17 20:39:45 2002 From: prefectmarcus at yahoo.com (prefectmarcus) Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2002 20:39:45 -0000 Subject: Why Lupin was on the train (Was : Dumbledore, Head of House, Portkeys In-Reply-To: <8o85cg+dghm@eGroups.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42851 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Rita Winston" wrote: > Dumbledore knew that Lupin is a good guy, and I (being slow on the > uptake) only realized last week that the reason that Lupin was on the > Hogwarts Express, instead of arriving before the students like all > the other teachers, is that Dumbledore had asked him to ride the > train to guard Harry (at least I figured that out for myself before I > read it in a fanfic!). If that be the case, how did Lupin know which carriage and which compartment he had to be in to watch Harry? If he was only pretending to sleep, how come he didn't recognize Scabbers? It is possible that Dumbledore asked his new DADA teacher to be on hand when the Dementors searched the train, but Dumbledore's concern is for all his students, not just Harry. No, I think the easiest explanation is that Lupin's appointment was held up until the last minute due to the objections of people not wanting a werewolf teaching the children. Marcus From mikezitz at charter.net Sat Aug 17 20:31:03 2002 From: mikezitz at charter.net (interstate999) Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2002 20:31:03 -0000 Subject: More On The Clock Says 'Mortal Peril' In-Reply-To: <003201c24609$f847cbe0$badef718@kzo.chartermi.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42852 Ok more on this clock thing. They are 8 positions for the hands of the clock to be in. 7 positions make some kinda of sense except one. Home, School, Work, Traveling, Lost, Hospital, Prison, Mortal Peril. The one that I find curious is not Mortal Peril, but Prison. Each of the other positions indicate not so much a location, but describes what type of activity you are engaged in, like hospital = injured, school = learning, home = rest, and so on. The only one that doesn't make since is prison. Who might be do for a trip to Azkaban? Surely this won't be Ginny, Ron, Fred, or George. This leaves only Bill, Charlie, Percy, Arthur, or Molly. Maybe this will be Percy that makes a trip to Azkaban. We have already seen him starting to split from the family and side with the MoM. By keeping the blinders on, he could set himself up to commit a crime although he had good intentions. Maybe Percy will play a role in turning on his family a sending one of his own family to the brig. This seems to fit his role a bit more than himself going to the brig. But who might we see spending days on end with the dementors....... Bill Weasley. Harry even said Bill looked really (Cool). A perfect character to send to jail that is somewhat close to harry, or at least one that harry admires. Mike Zitzmann Hammond, LA. From jkusalavagemd at yahoo.com Sat Aug 17 20:39:15 2002 From: jkusalavagemd at yahoo.com (jkusalavagemd) Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2002 20:39:15 -0000 Subject: really odd topic: Polyjuice Potion: Gender? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42853 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "grey_wolf_c" wrote: > > Option A: ADN-transformation: > ----------------------------- > > If you turn into a clone of the original, copulating would be possible, > and possibly getting pregnant would be, too. However, you would > misscarriage within the hour, since the person you're polyjuicing into > isn't pregnant herself, so you'd change into the non-pregnant version > of her. A woman turning into a man could help another woman to become > pregnant, too. > > Speaking of which, and before anyone asks, I don't think that > polyjuicing into a pregnant woman would make you pregnant, since the > baby is a different person. Unless you happened to take tissue from the > fetus, he/she wouldn't be included in the potion. (and if you include > the tissue of the fetus, you'd probably die, since you won't have a > mother around you to feed you, give you air, etc.) > > In this case, however, if a man turns into another, has (unsafe) sex, > and the woman involved becomes pregnant, the ADN would be the one of > the person he has polyjuiced into. The same works for a woman that > polyjuices into another woman (half of the ADN of the children is that > of the woman you've polyjuiced into), although it would probably > misscarriage, since they would have to be compatible for the fetus to > survive. > This is truly an odd thread, but grey wolf's reply got me thinking. I assume that ADN refers to deoxyribonucleic acid. (In America we use a slightly different acronym, DNA.) He mentions two cases. In one pregnancy, the fetus would die when the polyjuice potion wore off. I guess it would be theoretically possible for a pregnancy to continue to term and deliver, if the polyjuice was taken throughout the pregnancy, as Barty Crouch, Jr. took PP throughout the schoolyear. In the second, he wonders whether a pregnant woman taking PP would remain pregnant, and speculates that she would not, because of the different ADN (or DNA). I would like to argue differently, in that a fetus does not recognize maternal tissue as foreign. The immune response is absent. This is a property that scientists have taken advantage of in such procedures as pancreatic cell transplants to attempt to cure Diabetes Mellitus. I therefore think that it could be theoretically possible-- within the framework of this speculation-- for a person taking polyjuice potion with material from a pregnant mother and fetal blood cells, which can be harmed without harming the baby, to become pregnant himself/herself. I know it is like arguing how many angels could dance on the head of a pin, but I got caught up in the question. Haggridd From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Sat Aug 17 21:44:50 2002 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (bboy_mn) Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2002 21:44:50 -0000 Subject: Why Lupin was on the train (Flint?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42854 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "prefectmarcus" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Rita Winston" wrote: Rita originally said: > > Dumbledore knew that Lupin is a good guy, and I (being slow on > > the uptake) only realized last week that the reason that Lupin > > was on the Hogwarts Express, instead of arriving before the > > students like all the other teachers, is that Dumbledore had > > asked him to ride the train to guard Harry (at least I figured > > that out for myself before I read it in a fanfic!). Marcus Relpied: > > If that be the case, how did Lupin know which carriage and which > compartment he had to be in to watch Harry? If he was only > pretending to sleep, how come he didn't recognize Scabbers? > > It is possible that Dumbledore asked his new DADA teacher to be > on hand when the Dementors searched the train, but Dumbledore's > concern is for all his students, not just Harry. > > No, I think the easiest explanation is that Lupin's appointment > was held up until the last minute due to the objections of people > not wanting a werewolf teaching the children. > > Marcus bboy_mn changes the subject: Sorry to rush off on a new topic, but you reminded me of something I've wondered about for a long time. Scene: Mr. & Mrs. Weasley take Harry and family to that train station. Everyone enters platform 9-3/4 and stows there gear in a available compartment. The Weasley brothers, Hermione, & Ginny all get into this compartment while Arthur pulls Harry to the side to tell him about Sirius Black. They talk, the train starts to leave, Harry rushed to the train, where Ron is holding the compartment door open for him. Harry jumps on the train and is now, presumably, in the compartment with the Weasley's and his friends. Harry wants to talk to Ron and Hermione alone so they go looking for a free compartment. The best they can do is a compartment at the end of the train with one sleeping man in it. Yada-yada-yada... Harry's pocket sneakoscope goes off and they open his (Harry's) trunk and stuff the sneakoscope in a sock. Q: How did everyone's trunks get into the compartment with Lupin when they we originally in the compartment with the other Weasley brothers? Ginney joins them (H/R/H) later and is presumably coming from the compartment with the other Weasley brothers. This seems to confirm that there really is an 'original' compartment and Lupin's compartment. So, again, how did their trunks magically move to Lupin's compartment? Just thought I'd ask. Back on topic- I'm sure Lupin's appointment came at the last minute, partly because it took a long time to find someone and partly because it took a long time to convince everyone to accept Lupin. He is probably traveling by train, because he is too weak to travel by any other workable methods. bboy_mn From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Sat Aug 17 22:19:23 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2002 22:19:23 -0000 Subject: Why Lupin was on the train In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42855 bboy_mn wrote: > Sorry to rush off on a new topic, but you reminded me of something > I've wondered about for a long time. > > Scene: Mr. & Mrs. Weasley take Harry and family to that train > station. > > Everyone enters platform 9-3/4 and stows there gear in a available > compartment. The Weasley brothers, Hermione, & Ginny all get into > this compartment while Arthur pulls Harry to the side to tell him > about Sirius Black. They talk, the train starts to leave, Harry > rushed to the train, where Ron is holding the compartment door open > for him. Harry jumps on the train and is now, presumably, in the > compartment with the Weasley's and his friends. Harry wants to talk > to Ron and Hermione alone so they go looking for a free compartment. > The best they can do is a compartment at the end of the train with > one sleeping man in it. > > Yada-yada-yada... Harry's pocket sneakoscope goes off and they open > his (Harry's) trunk and stuff the sneakoscope in a sock. > > Q: How did everyone's trunks get into the compartment with Lupin when > they we originally in the compartment with the other Weasley brothers? > > bboy_mn My own version of PoA seems to differ slightly from your descritpion, bboy_mn: When they arrive to the plataform 9 3/4, they get onto the train and, even though they pass several full *compartments*, in the end they arrive to the last *wagon*, which is nearly empty. JKR never specifies in what compartment they leave the trunks. Thus, it's entirely possible that they leave their things in the last comprtment, empty at that point, and that when they join Ginny, Fred and George, that are in *another* compartment (for example, the one were Lee Jordan is). Then Harry gets off the train to speak with Arthur, and while all of them are away, Lupin enters the last compartment, leaves his suitcase besides Harry's trunk, and promptly falls asleep. It's a somewhat forced story, but it fits. Hope that helps, Grey Wolf, who in a previous post did mean "DNA" when he said "ADN" (which is what it's called "DNA" in his country. He get "AIDS" right, but he sometimes mistakes "DNA"). From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Sat Aug 17 22:20:26 2002 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (bboy_mn) Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2002 22:20:26 -0000 Subject: More On The Clock Says 'Mortal Peril' In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42856 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "interstate999" wrote: Mike Zitzmann Said: > Ok more on this clock thing. > > They are 8 positions for the hands of the clock to be in. 7 > positions make some kinda of sense except one. > > Home, School, Work, Traveling, Lost, Hospital, Prison, Mortal Peril. > > The one that I find curious is not Mortal Peril, but Prison. > > .... edited ..... > > Mike Zitzmann > Hammond, LA. bboy_mn comments: PRISON- Yes, it says Prison, but I wonder if it doesn't mean 'arrested' or 'under arrest'; currently being held by the authorities. Certainly, you don't need a hand to tell you someone is in prison. The arrest, the trial, the prison sentence might all be better clues to the state of affairs. So, while it definitely does say Prison, I still have to assume that the real intent is to say the someone has been arrested or is being detained by the authorities. Now LOST on the other hande seems very abstract. If Harry and Ron are wondering around Hogwart's castle going 'I'm sure that classroom is in this part of the castle somewhere', does that qualify as lost? If you don't know where you are, but are still sure that you can get to where you want to go, does that qualify as lost? (Ladies, how many times have you heard your man say, 'I'm not lost, I just don't know where I'm at.' Guys will never admit that they are lost. Women, on the other hand, have little sense of adventure. They always want to stop and ask for direction. We're MEN, and real men don't ask for help, thank you very much. [in case it didn't come through, that was humor]) Or perhaps, when it goes to LOST, it means you are lost forever, the next step after Mortal Peril. I do agree though that PRISON in the specific litteral sense, seems a bit odd. bboy_mn From rvotaw at i-55.com Sat Aug 17 22:32:06 2002 From: rvotaw at i-55.com (Richelle Votaw) Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2002 17:32:06 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Occam's 24 hours References: Message-ID: <00ec01c2463d$eb711000$029dcdd1@istu757> No: HPFGUIDX 42857 Grey wolf writes: > My suggestion, as Richelle has probably guessed, is that Harry was fed > by Molly *directly* when he was there (being 1 year and three months, > it falls within the timeframe she has suggested and that I'm assuming > correct). She could have enough milk if we push Ginny's birthday (which Yes, that's what I thought you were getting at. :) The average age of weaning would be about a year, so 1 year and 3 months isn't far past. Even if Harry was already weaned, considering the trauma he'd been through it would be likely he regressed just a bit. > born a year later). At that time, Molly would have been breast-feeding > both Ron and Ginny, and she would have abundant milk, since Ginny had > been recently born, so she could also feed Harry. Whether or not she were still breast-feeding Ron, as long as Ginny was around she would've been able to feed Harry. Particularly since it was only for a day. While normal fifteen month olds can eat most table foods, one in this particular state of trauma would most likely either refuse food entirely or be unable to properly digest it. > As Richelle suggests, this would create the kind of bond that exists > between Molly and Harry almost certainly, and would've helped calm a > very pained, nervous baby boy who had just surved an AK and a house > falling in ruins around him, as well as the loss of his parents. Also, Very true. Even if Harry was no longer being nursed by Lily, it's a naturally soothing relationship and I think it would've been smart to utilize it at such a time. However, I somehow doubt whether this will come up in the course of books 5 through 7. It would be a bit embarassing for Harry, don't you think? "I did what?!" ;) However, if it is ever confirmed that Harry was at the Weasleys those 24 hours (or some of those 24 hours) that's good enough for me. Richelle From prefectmarcus at yahoo.com Sat Aug 17 22:35:52 2002 From: prefectmarcus at yahoo.com (prefectmarcus) Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2002 22:35:52 -0000 Subject: Why Lupin was on the train (Flint?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42858 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "bboy_mn" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "prefectmarcus" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Rita Winston" wrote: > > Rita originally said: > > > Dumbledore knew that Lupin is a good guy, and I (being slow on > > > the uptake) only realized last week that the reason that Lupin > > > was on the Hogwarts Express, instead of arriving before the > > > students like all the other teachers, is that Dumbledore had > > > asked him to ride the train to guard Harry (at least I figured > > > that out for myself before I read it in a fanfic!). > > Marcus Relpied: > > > > If that be the case, how did Lupin know which carriage and which > > compartment he had to be in to watch Harry? If he was only > > pretending to sleep, how come he didn't recognize Scabbers? > > > > It is possible that Dumbledore asked his new DADA teacher to be > > on hand when the Dementors searched the train, but Dumbledore's > > concern is for all his students, not just Harry. > > > > No, I think the easiest explanation is that Lupin's appointment > > was held up until the last minute due to the objections of people > > not wanting a werewolf teaching the children. > > > > Marcus > > bboy_mn changes the subject: > > Sorry to rush off on a new topic, but you reminded me of something > I've wondered about for a long time. > > Scene: Mr. & Mrs. Weasley take Harry and family to that train station. > > Everyone enters platform 9-3/4 and stows there gear in a available > compartment. The Weasley brothers, Hermione, & Ginny all get into this > compartment while Arthur pulls Harry to the side to tell him about > Sirius Black. They talk, the train starts to leave, Harry rushed to > the train, where Ron is holding the compartment door open for him. > Harry jumps on the train and is now, presumably, in the compartment > with the Weasley's and his friends. Harry wants to talk to Ron and > Hermione alone so they go looking for a free compartment. The best > they can do is a compartment at the end of the train with one sleeping > man in it. > > Yada-yada-yada... Harry's pocket sneakoscope goes off and they open > his (Harry's) trunk and stuff the sneakoscope in a sock. > > Q: How did everyone's trunks get into the compartment with Lupin when > they we originally in the compartment with the other Weasley brothers? > > Ginney joins them (H/R/H) later and is presumably coming from the > compartment with the other Weasley brothers. This seems to confirm > that there really is an 'original' compartment and Lupin's compartment. > > So, again, how did their trunks magically move to Lupin's compartment? > > Just thought I'd ask. > > > Back on topic- > I'm sure Lupin's appointment came at the last minute, partly because > it took a long time to find someone and partly because it took a long > time to convince everyone to accept Lupin. > > He is probably traveling by train, because he is too weak to travel by > any other workable methods. > > bboy_mn First point: Possible Flint. I have always brushed over it by saying that the book doesn't specifically say the trio didn't take the trunks with them in search of a new compartment. Yes, yes, I know it's weak, but it's the best I can do. I really think it is just a minor flint. Second point: Lupin's presense on the train. I agree. Marcus From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Sat Aug 17 22:57:41 2002 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (bboy_mn) Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2002 22:57:41 -0000 Subject: really odd topic: Polyjuice Potion: Gender? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42859 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "zoomphy" wrote: K. "zoomphy" Said: > Is cross-gendered Polyjuicing possible? (I hope I wrote that right.) > > Say a man named Theo makes Polyjuice potion from the hair of a girl > he knows at work, Erin. So Theo appears to be Erin. Jude, Erin's > boyfriend, meanders along and sees Erin!Theo and doesn't realize that > he's seeing Theo in disguise. Jude is feeling a little randy... > > Is copulation possible? This is assuming Theo was willing to keep up > the charade (for curiosity's sake, of course). Is pregnancy possible? > According to the Harry Potter lexicon, Theo would only LOOK like > Erin. So I'm thinking no. > > Say Theo made a polyjuice potion using one of Jude's fingernails, and > copulated with Erin, who was completely unaware of her lover's true > identity. And say she got pregnant. Would she be carrying Jude's > child, or Theo's child? > > Sorry if this has been discussed, or if it seems a wee bit odd, but > it's been one of those days. > > K. Oh now, this is just sick, totally twisted; I love it. Cross-gender switches- Sorry, I have to change the names, most of your names strike as being both male and female names. So Dick (no pun) becomes poly:Jane. Dick/poly:Jane has sex with John. Can Dick/poly:Jame get pregnant? Let's keep in mind the one hour time limit and no this isn't some macho thing where I think they can have sex for more than an hour (Although, I can. Really, I can. Serously, don't you believe me? No? Well, I'm hurt.) Although, that doesn't bring up the equally sick possibility of the polyjuice wearing of while the are ....how should I put this?.... ...ah-hem.... 'engaged'. Dick can't produce an Egg, but Dick/poly:Jane can (maybe). But when poly:Jane ceases to exist, the egg that can't be produced by the real Dick (really, no pun intended), ceases to exist. So when poly:Jane reverts to her/his original state, the poly:Jane egg reverts to it's original state which is either sperm or nothing. Let also keep in mind that fertilization rarely (although possible) occurs in an hour or less. It can, in some instances, take a couple of days. Also, as I'm sure you know, the Gryffindor Trinity seems to have intentionally avoided or at least, appears to have never considered cross-gender switches. Although, that could just be pre-adolesant angst. So, now to the sickest of the sick. (WARNING- NC-17 and sick) If two guys are trapped on an remote island with nothing but plenty of food, fresh water, a wig of real woman's hair, and a vat of polyjuice; would they be tempted? Sorry, but I did warned you that it was the 'sickest of the sick'. bboy_mn From msn.tsf at hccnet.nl Sat Aug 17 22:02:11 2002 From: msn.tsf at hccnet.nl (Yoris) Date: Sun, 18 Aug 2002 00:02:11 +0200 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Harry's Holly Wand Connotating Christmas Message-ID: <000e01c24639$bd0e33e0$9600000a@newpc> No: HPFGUIDX 42860 Phyllis: > (perhaps the former Professor Romulus J. Lupin, Remus' > brother, that I theorized might have previously owned the battered > briefcase)? > Like half of my friends have a middle name and even if I know them for years I don't know them, it's on their bills and stuff though... it's MORE THAN NORMAL, logical I will even argue a student doesn't know about the middle names of a teacher, there is no reason R.J. Lupin couldn't be just Remus Joris Lupin or Remus Jack Lupin. There are teachers of who I don't even know their first names, just like Harry only after half a year finds out that Moody's name really is Alastor (well in Dutch version I don't know if he's really called Alastor) let alone knowing about their middle names. Yoris -- who knows most of his dad's middle names but has no idea in which order they should be :) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From msn.tsf at hccnet.nl Sat Aug 17 22:04:22 2002 From: msn.tsf at hccnet.nl (Yoris) Date: Sun, 18 Aug 2002 00:04:22 +0200 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: really odd topic: Polyjuice Potion: Gender? Message-ID: <003101c2463a$0ae013e0$9600000a@newpc> No: HPFGUIDX 42861 Just a VERY SMALL note on DNA transformation grey wolf: > Option A: DNA-transformation: > ----------------------------- > > If you turn into a clone of the original, copulating would be possible, > and possibly getting pregnant would be, too. However, you would > misscarriage within the hour, since the person you're polyjuicing into > isn't pregnant herself, so you'd change into the non-pregnant version > of her. A woman turning into a man could help another woman to become > pregnant, too. > > Speaking of which, and before anyone asks, I don't think that > polyjuicing into a pregnant woman would make you pregnant, since the > baby is a different person. Unless you happened to take tissue from the > fetus, he/she wouldn't be included in the potion. (and if you include > the tissue of the fetus, you'd probably die, since you won't have a > mother around you to feed you, give you air, etc.) > > In this case, however, if a man turns into another, has (unsafe) sex, > and the woman involved becomes pregnant, the DNA would be the one of > the person he has polyjuiced into. The same works for a woman that > polyjuices into another woman (half of the DNA of the children is that > of the woman you've polyjuiced into), although it would probably > misscarriage, since they would have to be compatible for the fetus to > survive. Polyjuicing in HP series is CANON BASED, NOT DNA-transformation: scars and lost legs and lost eyes are NOT in your DNA, but Crouch jr. got them anyway when he converts to Mad-Eye Moody :) Yoris [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From FalconKenobi at aol.com Sat Aug 17 22:01:13 2002 From: FalconKenobi at aol.com (FalconKenobi at aol.com) Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2002 18:01:13 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Why Lupin was on the train (Flint?) Message-ID: <29.2bdd74c6.2a9021a9@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 42862 In a message dated 17/08/02 22:45:14 GMT Daylight Time, bboy_mn at yahoo.com writes: > Q: How did everyone's trunks get into the compartment with Lupin when > they we originally in the compartment with the other Weasley brothers? > > Ginney joins them (H/R/H) later and is presumably coming from the > compartment with the other Weasley brothers. This seems to confirm > that there really is an 'original' compartment and Lupin's compartment. > > So, again, how did their trunks magically move to Lupin's compartment? > the answers in the question really: it was magic! *shrugs* whaddaya mean, that's a boring answer? sheesh, some people!! ;-) LOL LPS Cassie ~I am one of those melodramtic fools, neurotic to the bone, no doubt about it~ http://www.aemslash.co.uk - Every Generation Has A Legend:The Fanfiction Of Adelaide Elizabeth Morgan http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cassie_fic [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Sun Aug 18 05:52:02 2002 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (bboy_mn) Date: Sun, 18 Aug 2002 05:52:02 -0000 Subject: Confirm Book 5 OoP - No Eng-to--Eng Translation? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42863 I came across a reference somewhere (can't find it now) that indicated book 5 and future books will not be translated from British English to American English. I hope it's true. Can anyone confirm this for me? (sorry for the short post) bboy_mn From SKTHOMPSON_1 at msn.com Sun Aug 18 06:06:14 2002 From: SKTHOMPSON_1 at msn.com (kelleyelf) Date: Sun, 18 Aug 2002 06:06:14 -0000 Subject: More about Harry's Holly Wand and associated symbolism (Talisman's post) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42864 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "erisedstraeh2002" wrote: > Felicia wrote: > > May we assume therefore that it was just the luck of the draw *** edited *** and that it is a coincidence that both are made out of wood associated in some form with death i.e. *Holly and Yew*, *** edited *** > > ~Phyllis replied: > My theory on why JKR chose holly as Harry's wand wood is because > holly is associated with Christmas, and I am of the belief that Harry is meant to save the wizarding world from evil as Christ was sent to save the world from evil. >>>>>>>>>> Talisman replies: I strongly agree that in matching Harry to a holly wand Rowling has provided a critical symbolic key to the HP series. Holly is traditionally associated with the cycle of death/rebirth, or reserection, being a plant that remains green in winter. (An answer as well to those who have opined about Harry's death in threads such a "Horrible to Write.") Holly is also associated with the Celtic sun-god Lugh, the patron of sorcery no less. (I noted before posting that the Lugh connection has been suggested by Ronale7; see earlier discussions of this myth in various threads by searching for "Lugh"). A reading of the myth of Lugh provides many fertile comparisions between the Celtic hero and Harry: Oidche Lugnasa (Lugh's feast day) is HP's Birthday, July 31; Prophesy that evil king Balor (Lugh's grandpa) would be killed by grandson leads to Balor's failed attempt to kill Lugh; Lugh was brought up in the care of a master magician, to keep him safe; when Balor (a Fromorian) tries to take over the Tuatha de Danann, and has killed the Tautha king, Lugh emerges as the hero of the battle and the new king of his people. hmmmm. (Tangentially: The use of a Celtic myth that is specifically important to Scottish culture makes sense considering: Rowling is part Scottish; she wrote (writes?)from Edinburgh, Scotland; her writing was supported by a grant from the Scottish Arts Council; she set Hogwarts in Scotland (FBAWTFT, p.2); the Griffindor house colors and mascot evoke the Scottish royal flag: red lion rampant on a field of gold (make the red/gold into gules/or if you are into heraldry). In addition to Holly and Lugh (as are all sun god types) being symbols of rebirth, let's not forget that lovely red and gold phoenix. Yes indeed, there is something to it. Talisman MOD NOTE: Talisman, the reason your post is showing up like this is that you sent it to the HPforGrownups-owner at yahoogroups.com address, which goes to the Mods. To email a post to the list, send to HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com. I tried to email it back to you telling you this, but it bounced back to me from your yahoo account. We also have your follow-up message, so let me know if you'd like me to send it back to you. (My address: SKTHOMPSON @ msn.com) --Kelley, for the Mods From ajl at hanson.net Sun Aug 18 06:30:12 2002 From: ajl at hanson.net (dembeldei) Date: Sun, 18 Aug 2002 06:30:12 -0000 Subject: Lily *Did* Scream and Happy Thoughts Conjure a Patronus Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42865 From: erisedstraeh2002 Date: Sat Aug 17, 2002 11:55am "my kids were watching Peter Pan this morning, and it struck me that in order for Wendy and her brothers to fly, they have to think "happy thoughts." I wonder whether this is where JKR got the idea for a wizard needing to think of a happy thought in order to conjure a patronus?" Well, it always struck me as such an obvious reference from the first I heard of it, it even sounded corny-- But maybe that is because I knew the Peter Pan musical soundtrack backwards and forwards when I was six years old, so it's not as blatant to everyone else. I don't know if Peter Pan was the first reference, since it seems like a classic kind of thinking... Dembeldei From zoomphy at yahoo.com Sun Aug 18 04:09:58 2002 From: zoomphy at yahoo.com (zoomphy) Date: Sun, 18 Aug 2002 04:09:58 -0000 Subject: really odd topic: Polyjuice Potion: Gender? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42866 grey_wolf_c said: "Yes, it is possible: Crouch Jr.'s mother polyjuiced into him, and he intop her, to get him out of Azkaban, so canon demonstrates that cross-gender is possible." Oop, that completely slipped my mind. Thanks for the reminder! DNA Transformation: "If you turn into a clone of the original, copulating would be possible, and possibly getting pregnant would be, too. However, you would misscarriage within the hour, since the person you're polyjuicing into isn't pregnant herself, so you'd change into the non- pregnant version of her. A woman turning into a man could help another woman to become pregnant, too." Woah, the many possibilities and consequences of Polyjuice Potion come to light! Hehehehe. Well, I think jkusalavagemd mentioned taking polyjuice potion for an extended period of time, a la Barty Crouch Jr, in order to hypothetically carry a baby to term. That might result, in some strange, off the wall way, in the first man giving birth. bboy_mn said: > Let also keep in mind that fertilization rarely (although possible) > occurs in an hour or less. It can, in some instances, take a couple of > days. So, let's say DNA transformation takes place when Polyjuice is ingested. And a man took Polyjuice to assume the form of a female. And as a female, he/she copulates with a male. Continuing to take the Polyjuice, he/she becomes pregnant. If he were to stop taking the Polyjuice, would he be able to transform back, despite the pregnancy? Would it depend on how far along he/she was? Perhaps a miscarriage wouldn't necessarily occur, but the fetus would simply cease to exist. Or only part of the fetus would cease to exist, since the egg part didn't originally exist, thus causing the entire fetus to be miscarried? How, then, would it be expelled? Or would the fetus, being of an entirely different set of DNA, screw up the entire process, causing the Polyjuiced person to be stuck in some sort of limbo? and bboy_mn said: > Let's keep in mind the one hour time limit Well, and no this isn't some > macho thing where I think they can have sex for more than an hour> (Although, I can. Really, I can. Serously, don't you believe me? No? > Well, I'm hurt.) I'll take your word for it. > Although, that doesn't bring up the equally sick possibility of the > polyjuice wearing of while the are ....how should I put this?.... > ...ah-hem.... 'engaged'. I thought about that. That would be either really embarrassing, mortifying, or both. I'm thinking now of Austin Powers II, when Austin walks in on a clone of himself getting it on with Heather Graham's character. Imagine walking in on your lover having sex with you, only it's not you! Would that be considered cheating? If intent plays into it, then no. But on a purely physical level, it would probably depend upon what sort of transformation is it: illusory or DNA. > So, now to the sickest of the sick. (WARNING- NC-17 and sick) If two > guys are trapped on an remote island with nothing but plenty of food, > fresh water, a wig of real woman's hair, and a vat of polyjuice; would > they be tempted? Um, sure, they would be tempted. K. From fyredriftwood at yahoo.com Sun Aug 18 05:51:36 2002 From: fyredriftwood at yahoo.com (fyredriftwood) Date: Sun, 18 Aug 2002 05:51:36 -0000 Subject: Death Eater's Kids Controversy..... Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42867 Hello everyone... As I was reading through the books, the names of the Death Eaters popped into my mind: Malfoy, Crabbe, Goyle, Nott, and many many more. However, have you all noticed that they're all about the same age and are all in the house of Slytherin? Is it a conspiracy that Malfoy, Crabbe, and Goyle are all the same age? Or perhaps was it a thing assigned by Voldemort issuing that on a certain date, Death Eaters were required to make new recruits for his soon to be new squad of Death Eaters? And what's the deal with them all being male? Is that important? --Fyre Wood, who wishes to be a part of the Death Eaters as Voldy's right-hand Muggle Torturer. Ahh the sound of screaming is like music to my ears. From lmccabe at sonic.net Sun Aug 18 07:49:02 2002 From: lmccabe at sonic.net (Linda C. McCabe) Date: Sun, 18 Aug 2002 00:49:02 -0700 Subject: Another crack at the meaning of Arabella Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42868 Please forgive the late posting of this, I have gotten woefully behind in reading this list. I saw the discussion regarding the meaning of Arabella's name and had to jump in with this little gem that I found the other day. This comes from a website found at: http://www.vangelis.com.au/names/Womens_names/womena.asp Arabella - "eagle heroine." Austere, spartan, handsome. Leads a life of many interests. Fond of dogs and the open air. Little use for men. I especially like the line "fond of dogs." Which makes Mrs. Figg and all her cats seem mighty suspicious. Maybe JKR will pair her up with a certain black dog that we all know and love. ;-) And yes, I am one of the Sirius/Arabella SHIPpers. One reason is that they've both been isolated for sooo long. The idea of two people coming together after a collective 30 years of sexual abstinence, well that's mighty powerful stuff. That happens to be the topic of my first chapter in my fan fic, "Sirius Black's Secret Love." So if anyone wants to see how I explain all the Privet Drive security, Arabella's mission, etc. You can check it out at: http://www.schnoogle.com/authorLinks/L_C_McCabe/ Heck, I even come up with excuses as to why she couldn't babysit Harry because of her broken leg! And why she kept showing him all the photos of her cats. Athena From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Sun Aug 18 10:00:03 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Sun, 18 Aug 2002 10:00:03 -0000 Subject: Revised: Polyjuice Potion: Gender? In-Reply-To: <003101c2463a$0ae013e0$9600000a@newpc> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42869 Yoris wrote: > > Just a VERY SMALL note on DNA transformation > > Polyjuicing in HP series is CANON BASED, NOT DNA-transformation: > scars and lost legs and lost eyes are NOT in your DNA, but Crouch jr. > got them anyway when he converts to Mad-Eye Moody :) > > Yoris I think you have misunderstood what I meant with DNA-transformation. This concept is that you turn into an exact copy of the person you're polyjuicing down to their own DNA, which is the most improtant detail from a sexual/reproduction point of view. I assume that all other details are also identical, including things that are not detailed in the DNA code (like, for example, the digital prints). In fact, your own example of scars and lost legs seems to point to the DNA-transformation more than illusion-based. How can this be? Well, an illusion cannot, traditionally, hide matter; that is, if you're impersonting Moody, but still have both legs, an illusion will make the missing one look and feel like the woden leg, but it cannot make it disapear so you can wear Moody's real woodden leg. Same goes for the eye. Of course, this inmediately presents any number of logical problems (like: what if you're fatter than the one you're impersonating?), which traditionally are ignored with a convenient "it's magic", which is why I didn't discard the illusion- based PP. On the other hand, DNA_transformation changes ll and every cell in your body to make them equal to the ones of the impersonateed person. This is way you "grow" into the other person: the cells change when the potion starts to develop. If you prefer, it can be called "cell"-transformation instead of DNA-transformation, if it's clearer that way. Thinking about it, however, I DO like the DNA (or cell) transformation better than illusion-based, but there isn't enough canon for me to choose one right away. I'm not sure of what you mean with "CANON BASED", but if you mean narrative imperative (aka metathinking), you're welcomed to expand it into a proper theory, but I don't think you'll be able to get much after "JKR wants it so". I don't like those sort of theories, but develop it if you will, since it'll probably be closer to the truth than either of mine. Haggridd wrote: > This is truly an odd thread, but Grey Wolf's reply got me thinking. > I assume that ADN refers to deoxyribonucleic acid. (In America we > use a slightly different acronym, DNA.) Yep, sorry for the ADN acronym, it's just the one used in my country. > He mentions two cases. In > one pregnancy, the fetus would die when the polyjuice potion wore > off. I guess it would be theoretically possible for a pregnancy to > continue to term and deliver, if the polyjuice was taken throughout > the pregnancy, as Barty Crouch, Jr. took PP throughout the > schoolyear. I though quite a bit about this, but if the PP works in the DNA- transformation hipothesis (sp?), the next time the pregnant man!woman took the PP, he!she'd be taking it from someone who is *not* pregnant, and thus the new body would not be ready to carry the child. Maybe not within the next hour, but posibly about one month later (or so), when the fetus becomes attached to the uterus, and the placenta is established. It's difficult to tell were the mother stops and the child starts during the pregnancy, but I'm sure that the mother must be prepared in some way or another to carry a baby, which in this case would not happen, and thus a misscarriage would happen. > I would like to argue differently, in that a > fetus does not recognize maternal tissue as foreign. The immune > response is absent. I'll take your word for it. I have never really studied the biology of a fetus, and I assumed that there could be inmune response to a strange body like a fetus from the inmunologic system of the mother. If what you say is true (and I've got no reason to doubt it), then a woman!woman could in fact carry a baby with the impersonated woman's DNA. > I know it is like arguing how many angels could dance on the head of > a pin, but I got caught up in the question. I agree... on both counts. This question is somewhat strange, but it gives us a good insight to the ineer workings of the PP, so it's an interesting discussion, AND we're discussing something that will never have the slightest relevance in future books (and since I don't read fanfiction, even if it appears in some sick fanfic I will never know. Won't want to, either). But as has been often said in the list, "It's a long time until OoP comes out, and this is almost as much fun". Hope that helps, Grey Wolf From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Sun Aug 18 10:18:35 2002 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (bboy_mn) Date: Sun, 18 Aug 2002 10:18:35 -0000 Subject: Harry's Holly Wand Connotating Christmas In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42870 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "erisedstraeh2002" wrote: > Felicia wrote: > > May we assume therefore that it was just the luck of the draw > > that Harry got the wand that was Voldemort's twin then, and that > > it is a coincidence that both are made out of wood associated in > > some form with death i.e. *Holly and Yew*, and that Lily Potter's > > wand was good for charm work and James's wand better for > > transfiguration by more arbitrary selection? > > Now me: (~Phyllis) > > My theory on why JKR chose holly as Harry's wand wood is because > holly is associated with Christmas, and I am of the belief that Harry > is meant to save the wizarding world from evil as Christ was sent to > save the world from evil. > > We had a recent discussion about how in each book, something > significant happens on Halloween, but something significant also > happens each Christmas. In PS/SS, Harry receives the invisibility > cloak; in CoS, Harry, Ron and Hermione drink the Polyjuice Potion; in > PoA, Harry receives the Firebolt and in GoF, there's the Yule Ball > and Hagrid revealing himself as a half-giant. > > Laurel is a wood associated with Mars/Ares, the gods of war, so I'm > wondering whether we might see a baddie with a laurel wand in a > future book (perhaps the former Professor Romulus J. Lupin, Remus' > brother, that I theorized might have previously owned the battered > briefcase)? > > ~Phyllis > who agrees with JKR that those who say her books are anti- > Christian "haven't read them properly" bboy_mn Adds: "Sacred Woods and the Lore of Trees" http://www.tarahill.com/treelore/trees.html#holly HOLLY* (Ilex aquifolium) A beautiful white wood with an almost invisible grain; looks very much like ivory. Holly is associated with the death and rebirth symbolism of winter in both Pagan and Christian lore. In Arthurian legend, Gawain (representing the Oak King of summer) fought the Green Knight, who was armed with a holly club to represent winter. It is one of the three timbers used in the construction of chariot wheel shafts. It was used in spear shafts also. The qualities of a spear shaft are balance and directness, as the spear must be hefted to be thrown, the holly indicates directed balance and vigour to fight if the cause is just. Holly may be used in spells having to do with sleep or rest, and to ease the passage of death. Also: (Ron) WILLOW (Salix babylonica) In western tradition it is a symbol of mourning and unlucky love. Holly: See also- http://www.treesforlife.org.uk/tfl.mythholly.html Willow: See also- http://www.treesforlife.org.uk/tfl.mythwillow.html Ash (Cedric) is a most interesting wood. In non-Christian Euro-mythology, the first man, his name was Ask, was made from the wood of an Ash tree. General: See also- http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Chamber/7227/tree-lore.html Just thought I would throw that in. bboy_mn From catlady at wicca.net Sun Aug 18 11:01:23 2002 From: catlady at wicca.net (catlady_de_los_angeles) Date: Sun, 18 Aug 2002 11:01:23 -0000 Subject: Godric'sHollow/Pettigrew/a bunch of stuff/original GoF/Portkeys/Weasley Cloc Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42871 Elfun Debby wrote: << Godric's Hollow, which I imagine to be a wizarding village west of Bristol in South Wales >> So do I, but canon unfortunately says that Hogsmeade is the only wizarding village in Britain. Elfun Debby wrote: << While Dumbledore may have had a magical detection device that would have told him the Fidelius Charm had been broken, it would not have told him (or anyone else) that Voldemort had turned into a noxious vapor and disappeared. >> and Marcus replied: << so he arranges for a discreet watch to be placed on the Potter home. It might be magical like a crystal ball. >> I was about to suggest a crystal ball, but you beat me to it. However, I was going to suggest that, at least once the Fidelius Charm was broken, Dumbledore's crystal ball showed him everything going on, like a television, like the evil witch's crystal ball in the movie of The Wizard of Oz, so that Dumbledore would have seen Voldemort being knocked into a vapor and drifting away. Marina wrote: << After Voldemort disappears, this back-up DE (Mrs. LeStrange, maybe?) ends up in Azkaban, and bitches to the other inmates about how that little traitor Wormtail ruined everything. So that's how they all know. Snape, never having been in Azkaban, doesn't know. >> Yes, that is probably what happened. But it doesn't explain why Peter would feel any need to hide from the surviving Death Eaters. First, as he wasn't in Azkaban, he doesn't even know that they're speaking his name. Second, the ones who are in Azkaban are not well-positioned to harm him. What was he hiding from? bboy_mn wrote: << what happens if a werewolf mates with a regular wolf or a werewolf mates with another female werewolf? >> and Primrose replied: << their kids are just normal little wizards and witches. You get to be a werewolf by being bitten by one, not by having a parent who's one. >> I have no canon on the matter, but I am convinced that a female werewolf cannot carry a pregnancy longer than two or three months (regardless whether conceived in human or wolf form) because the monthly werewolf transformation is just too hard on the fetus. I am equally convinced that one of the many ways in which the Animagus transformation is better than the werewolf transformation is that the Animagus transformation doesn't harm the fetus (which transforms along with its mother). Rebecca Stephens wrote: << Maybe it was a spell put on Harry under Dumbledore's orders. That would explain why he, rather than the minster of magic, decided where Harry would live. >> It seems to me that even tho' the UK wizarding folk have a large Ministry of Magic which passes a great many laws, they mostly live their lives as if there were no government. Perhaps the care of orphaned children is left to volunteers and chance (as the care of 'stray' cats is in my Muggle world). Corinth wrote: << Gringotts wouldn't care what name was on the letter (although they would have notified the MoM had it been Siuris' own) >> I'm not sure they would have notified MoM -- I don't get much impression that the goblins think they are ruled by the wizard government. Clareysage wrote: << as we start to consider who Madame's Hooch's husband could be. >> I can't see how there can be any question about it: Hooch and McGonagallo have obviously been a couple since forever. ('Madam' is just a term of respect for a woman of adult years, not a sign of being married.) Frankie wrote: << Neville reminds me of a seed. He's round and small. Soon he's going to sprout... >> Is that a reference to his favorite professor, Madam Sprout? Ginny Merrimom wrote: << What Harry sees is what he desires -- a large family. Maybe his mom and dad look like themselves due to some latent memory, but the rest of the crowd is just wishful thinking, IMHO, not secret relatives only the mirror knows about. >> Thank you! That's what I think, too, but I thought I was the only one, surrounded as I am by people who use those apparitions in the Mirror to argue e.g. that Voldemort is not Harry's grandfather (*I* believe that Voldemort is not Harry's grandfather) because he didn't show in the Mirror. Barb wrote: << Why might he do that? Because HIS mind was already poisoned against Hagrid by Tom Riddle. >> Surely the general opinion of giants and half-giants is enough to poison Lucius's mind against Hagrid ... By the way, I have never understood WHY Malfoys share the common prejudice against giants and werewolves. Why would people who adore the Dark Lord despise Dark Creatures who are alleged to also serve the Dark Lord? JOdel wrote: <> Maybe with Narcissa? Maybe, as already suggested by others, with Diary!Tom himself? << Isn't it just a bit overly fortuitious that Dobby was given instructions to scare Harry Potter away from Hogwarts as well? >> I thought Dobby had come up with the idea of scaring Harry away from Hogwarts all on his own? Debbie Owen wrote: << In the first chapter of GoF, Voldemort clearly says, "one more death and our path to Harry Potter is clear." What death is he referring to? >> and Heather replied: << Barty Crouch Sr. makes sense, except that Voldy says that the Ministry doesn't have to know, and I think someone would notice the death of such an important official. >> and JOdel replied: << I sugggest that the original plan may have been that Winky would be delegated to caring for Voldemort in the Crouch home while Wormtail impersonated Crouch Sr often enough to keep people from realizing that he was dead, >> As others have mentioned, JKR said in interviews that she had almost finished GoF when she realised that she had 'a huge plot hole' and had to rewrite much of it, and during the rewrite, a character (Ron's cousin) vanished. My theory is that the 'only one more curse' (or murder, or obstacle) is left over from the original plot. I have speculated about what could the original plot have been. I think that the original purpose of the World Quidditch Cup was not so that Crouch Jr could escape there, but so that our Weasley kids could meet their cousin (Icicle, for want of a better name) -- perhaps she was a Beauxbatons student and part of the student group with Madame Maxime. Percy was clearly having an uncomfortable relationship with his siblings at that time and perhaps found Icicle a more pleasant associate. They became pen pals, but Percy asked her to send post to him at the office rather than at home, because of his brothers' teasing him about corresponding with a girl. I think that in the original plot, EvilBaby!Voldemort and Wormtail showed up on Crouch Sr's doorstep and killed him (which was the one more murder or curse or obstacle), thus rescuing Crouch Jr (who had not rescued himself). Moody was not attacked nor impersonated -- JKR originally wrote Real!Moody as the DADA teacher. Then Crouch Jr used Polyjuice to impersonate Crouch Sr and went to the office regularly. At the office, he surreptitiously read Icicle's letters to Percy -- if Icicle were one of the Beauxbatons students who went to Hogwarts, that would explain why JKR said that her purpose in the story was as a conduit of information from Hogwarts to the outside world. Polyjuice!Crouch went to Hogwarts on occasions connected with the Triwizard Tournament (the drawing of names and each of the three Tasks). He put Harry's name into the Goblet. He (not Moody) arranged the hints to Harry for First and Second Tasks. He was one of the guards around the Third Task (perhaps originally the judges, of which he was one, roamed the perimeter instead of guards doing so) and cleared the monsters out of Harry's way. He made the Cup into a Portkey to the graveyard (as a Tournament judge, he was better placed to do so than Moody) and he grabbed Harry when Harry returned with Cedric's corpse. This explains the often asked question WHY Fake!Moody went to all the trouble of rigging the Tournament instead of just turning Harry's toothbrush or something into a Portkey much earlier in the year: Polyjuice!Crouch didn't have the run of the castle, wasn't there at all except at Tournament times, and had very limited contact with Harry even then. (Altho' I am very fond of the other answer, that Portkeys don't work at Hogwarts anymore than Apparation, but the Triwizard Cup was an exception, being rigged to Portkey the Champion from the maze to the judges' stand, and all Voldemort's accomplice did was to insert an extra stop into its programming.) There is the question of how Polyjuice!Crouch gave hints to Harry, when he wasn't at Hogwarts. I suggest it was through Percy. The First is easy: he could lecture Percy, right there in the office and in the line of business, about a Triwizard Champion in 1623 who used Seeker technques to grab a dragon's egg. The Second would be harder; perhaps he praised that MAGICAL WATERPLANTS OF THE MEDITERRANEAN so highly that hero-worshipping Percy bought two copies, one to memorize himself and one for pen-pal Icicle? or sister Ginny? Vera Selkie wrote: << so the portkey magic would, of necessity, have to be a "lowest common denominator" sort -- if you have any magical ability at all, you can invoke it; if you're a muggle, you can't. >> I thought that Portkeys would work even on Muggles... Canon says: "Unobtrusive things, obviously, so Muggles don't go picking them up and playing with them..." which doesn't make it clear whether the Muggle who picked one up would suddenly find himself elsewhere, or merely make life inconvenient for the wizard who wanted to use that Portkey. Mike Zitzmann wrote: << They are 8 positions for the hands of the clock to be in. 7 positions make some kinda of sense except one. Home, School, Work, Traveling, Lost, Hospital, Prison, Mortal Peril. >> I've wondered about those positions ... not about why Prison? or why Mortal Peril? Instead, I wonder where Bill's clock hand is when he is in his own flat in Egypt: Home? Then where is it when he visits The Burrow, Travelling? And where is it when he's out clubbing (in his 'cool' clothes)? And shopping? And just hanging out? From SaalsG at cni-usa.com Sun Aug 18 14:29:05 2002 From: SaalsG at cni-usa.com (Grace) Date: Sun, 18 Aug 2002 09:29:05 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: More about Harry's Holly Wand and associated symbolism References: Message-ID: <010001c246c3$9bd52780$5f4053d1@SaalsD> No: HPFGUIDX 42872 > ~Phyllis replied: > My theory on why JKR chose holly as Harry's wand wood is because > holly is associated with Christmas, and I am of the belief that Harry is meant to save the wizarding world from evil as Christ was sent to save the world from evil. >>>>>>>>>> Talisman replies: I strongly agree that in matching Harry to a holly wand Rowling has provided a critical symbolic key to the HP series. Holly is traditionally associated with the cycle of death/rebirth, or reserection, being a plant that remains green in winter. (An answer as well to those who have opined about Harry's death in threads such a "Horrible to Write.") ......// Big snip (sorry Talisman) If anyone has used the Flower Essenses, Holly is one of the standard ones. One use of Holly is described such: "Holly is the chief remedy when there is a need for more love: a. Abused b. neglected c. abandoned, uncared or discarded" Grace From bdmorrp at budget.state.ny.us Sun Aug 18 16:53:45 2002 From: bdmorrp at budget.state.ny.us (erisedstraeh2002) Date: Sun, 18 Aug 2002 16:53:45 -0000 Subject: Fudge: Ever-so-Evil or Bumbling Fool? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42873 Jodel wrote: >Er, it IS obvious to everyone whose pocket Fudge is in, isn't it? Now me: At the risk of sounding like an idiot, I *don't* think it's obvious that Fudge is ever-so-evil. I think JKR is intentionally trying to make us vascillate between Fudge as ever-so-evil and Fudge as bumbling fool. The first time we're introduced to Fudge, he's described as "wearing a strange mixture of clothes: a pinstriped suit, a scarlet tie, a long black cloak, and pointed purple boots. Under his arm he carried a lime-green bowler" (CoS, US paperback ed., pgs. 260-261). Sounds like a cross between a vampire and a clown to me! The "pinstriped suit" suggests a proper businessperson; the "scarlet tie" - perhaps suggesting a scarlet A?; the long black cloak - often used in a negative context to describe Snape, which other listies have suggested supports the theory; the "pointed purple boots" and "lime-green bowler" sound clown-like (IMHO). And then his actions - in CoS, he sends Hagrid to Azkaban with no compelling evidence, but in the beginning of PoA, he seems genuinely concerned about Harry's safety after he runs away from the Dursley's and also smooths over the Aunt Marge inflation incident. But then at the end of GoF, he defends the Death Eaters that Harry names and uses a Dementor to suck out Fake!Moody's soul so he can't give evidence to the Ministry. I think the contradictions in both Fudge's manner of dress and in his actions are a deliberate attempt on JKR's part to make us unsure of his intentions. And I, for one, have completely fallen for it! I think it's equally likely that Fudge is "blinded by the love of the office he holds" and isn't accepting the fact that Voldemort is back because it's creating "disruption in his comfortable and ordered world" or that Fudge is actually in Voldemort's pocket. I rate the odds at 50/50 that Fudge will turn out ever-so-evil. Of course, I would love to hear what others have to say! ~Phyllis the risk of sounding like an idiot has never stopped me from expressing my opinions From eloiseherisson at aol.com Sun Aug 18 17:12:41 2002 From: eloiseherisson at aol.com (eloiseherisson at aol.com) Date: Sun, 18 Aug 2002 13:12:41 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Another crack at the meaning of Arabella Message-ID: <133.130eac5e.2a912f89@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 42874 Athena: > Please forgive the late posting of this, I have gotten woefully behind in > reading this list. I saw the discussion regarding the meaning of > Arabella's > name and had to jump in with this little gem that I found the other day. > This comes from a website found at: > http://www.vangelis.com.au/names/Womens_names/womena.asp > > Arabella - "eagle heroine." Austere, spartan, handsome. Leads a life of > many > interests. Fond of dogs and the open air. Little use for men. How the heck do they work that one out? I see from the site that they say it's Teutonic. Any comment from our Germanicists? (It sounds anything but Germanic to me) I see that they also give the same "eagle heroine" definition to Annabel; logical as Arabella and Annabel are both variations on Amabel. However, the site also says that Annabel is *Hebrew*. (I understand it to be Scottish.) I'm afraid I'm confused at this point. How can related names have both a Teutonic and a Hebrew origin?> > > I especially like the line "fond of dogs." Which makes Mrs. Figg and all > her cats seem mighty suspicious. Maybe JKR will pair her up with a certain > black dog that we all know and love. ;-) > > And yes, I am one of the Sirius/Arabella SHIPpers. > "Fond of dogs" and "little time for men"? And you still want to pair her with Sirius? Eloise who doesn't want to think about this any further! [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Ali at zymurgy.org Sun Aug 18 17:21:06 2002 From: Ali at zymurgy.org (alhewison) Date: Sun, 18 Aug 2002 17:21:06 -0000 Subject: Fudge: Ever-so-Evil or Bumbling Fool? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42875 > Jodel wrote: > > >Er, it IS obvious to everyone whose pocket Fudge is in, isn't it? > Phyllis: > > At the risk of sounding like an idiot, I *don't* think it's obvious that Fudge is ever-so-evil. I think JKR is intentionally trying to make us vascillate between Fudge as ever-so-evil and Fudge as bumbling fool. > >> >> I think the contradictions in both Fudge's manner of dress and in his actions are a deliberate attempt on JKR's part to make us unsure of his intentions. And I, for one, have completely fallen for it! I think it's equally likely that Fudge is "blinded by the love of the office he holds" and isn't accepting the fact that Voldemort is back because it's creating "disruption in his comfortable and ordered world" or that Fudge is actually in Voldemort's pocket. I rate the > odds at 50/50 that Fudge will turn out ever-so-evil. I agree with you. Fudge is often compared to Neville Chamberlain, British Prime Minister in the lead-up and beginning of the Second World War. In the 1930's "Appeasement" was really popular - basically turning a blind eye on Hitler's activities. This was viewed as being the "safer" alternative to another World War. Chamberlain famously came back from a meeting "allowing" Hitler to occupy Czechoslovakia, saying that this was "Peace for our Time". Chamberlain was the most visible symbol that people could simply not endure the thought of suffering on the scale seen in 1914-18, and allowing a dictator to take half of Europe was better than the facing it - with resultant blood shed. Chamberlain thus compares to Fudge simply not wanting to believe that Voldemort *could* have returned, and thus doing nothing to prevent his rise to power any further. I can see JKR portraying Fudge as a Chamberlain-like character. People don't need to be out and out evil to cause massive harm to the *good*side. If you were to take the analogy further, it's not impossible to see Fudge *giving* Harry to Voldemort in the belief that this would stop Voldemort's terror activities, and allow the WW "status Quo" to be maintained come what may. Ali From talisman22457 at yahoo.com Sun Aug 18 07:49:48 2002 From: talisman22457 at yahoo.com (talisman22457) Date: Sun, 18 Aug 2002 07:49:48 -0000 Subject: Subject: Death Eater's Kids Controversy..... Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42876 "fyredriftwood" wrote As I was reading through the books, the names of the Death Eaters popped into my mind: Malfoy, Crabbe, Goyle, Nott, and many many more. However, have you all noticed that they're all about the same age and are all in the house of Slytherin? Is it a conspiracy that Malfoy, Crabbe, and Goyle are all the same age? ***edited*** And what's the deal with them all being male? Is that important? --Fyre Wood, who wishes to be a part of the Death Eaters as Voldy's right-hand Muggle Torturer. Ahh the sound of screaming is like music to my ears. Talisman replies: I'm not clear as to your references. If you mean the Death Eaters named in Chapter 23 of GoF, I think those are adults of unknown ages; and though it's a good guess they were once Slytherins we only know about some, like Lucius Malfoy, for sure. As to why many of them have children Harry's age, I'd vote for plot expediency over a Voldemort based conspiracy. But, take heart, there are no gender boundries in Muggle torture. One of the most die-hard Death Eaters is Madame Lestrange (recall her brave and contemptuous sneers as she is led to Azkaban GoF p. 595- 96 "The Dark Lord will rise again!") whom Voldemaort intends to "honor beyond [her] dreams" GoF p.651. Talisman From talisman22457 at yahoo.com Sun Aug 18 08:13:24 2002 From: talisman22457 at yahoo.com (talisman22457) Date: Sun, 18 Aug 2002 08:13:24 -0000 Subject: Another crack at the meaning of Arabella Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42877 "Linda C. McCabe" Maybe JKR will pair her [Arabella Figg]up with a certain black dog that we all know and love. ;-) And yes, I am one of the Sirius/Arabella SHIPpers. One reason is that they've both been isolated for sooo long. Talisman queries: I'm all for Sirius love, but where does this SHIP leave poor Mr. Perkins? The fact that the tent Harry slept in at the Quiditch World cup--which smelt of cats and was decorated in the inimitable Figg style--was borrowed from old Perkins (GoF 80) seems to suggest that he was there first when it comes to Arabella's affections. Or do they just time-share camping equipment? Perhaps Perkins's lumbago has become a relationship issue . . . Talisman From wmginnypowell at msn.com Sun Aug 18 13:27:38 2002 From: wmginnypowell at msn.com (merimom3) Date: Sun, 18 Aug 2002 13:27:38 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42878 I'm really enjoying the speculation about cross-gender and pregnancies using polyjuice. I have no answers on the matter (only Jo does, of course), but it did suggest to me another line of questioning. I call it Polyjuice squared. If Abigail takes polyjuice to become Betty, can Abigail-as-Betty take more polyjuice and become Cathy? Say Abigail is a double agent, pretending to be Betty to spy on Voldemort for Dumbledore. Voldie, not knowing Betty is really Abigail-as-Betty, cooks up a plot that involves Betty polyjuicing into Cathy. When Abigail-as-Betty drinks the new brew, will she turn into Cathy? Or will nothing happen? Or will there be some sort of weird reaction where she becomes Abigail-as-half-Betty-half- Cathy? Does it depend on when her next dose of polyjuice was due (if it was almost time, the new brew would work, but if she had just takes the Betty juice, the Cathy juice wouldn't work)? Speculate at will. HF said: >However, it's *Arthur* who calls [Mundugus Fletcher] old, and Arthur is presumably around 65-70 >years Um, I thought we estimated that his oldest child was at most 30, and that Arthur and Molly got started pretty soon after leaving Hogwarts, so that makes him more like 50. Fyre Wood asked: >However, have you all noticed that they're all about the same age and >are all in the house of Slytherin? Is it a conspiracy that Malfoy, >Crabbe, and Goyle are all the same age? Or perhaps was it a thing >assigned by Voldemort issuing that on a certain date, Death Eaters >were required to make new recruits for his soon to be new squad of >Death Eaters? >And what's the deal with them all being male? Is that important? Oooh, this is bleak. I think it is important, and here's why. If I were Voldemort [accessing latent evil personality traits now] and I wanted to ensure another generation of greatness, I would take care of that personally. In other words, I'd knock up every willing or not-so-willing woman I could find. Sort of a one-man super race. See David Koresh (sp?) for a real world example. Your really loyal DEs (Malfoy, Crabbe, Goyle ) would surely offer up their wives in a display of loyalty. As to why they're all male, that sort of thing is determined by the father (some men make more Y chromosome sperm). Or, more bleakly, he only wanted boys and so all girls were aborted or sacrificed at birth. This explains why there seem to be so many only children, too. Ick. Somebody start a more pleasant thread soon. Ginny From Malady579 at hotmail.com Sun Aug 18 15:41:36 2002 From: Malady579 at hotmail.com (malady579) Date: Sun, 18 Aug 2002 15:41:36 -0000 Subject: Lily *Did* Scream In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42879 I always thought Lily screamed because she was yelling for Voldemort to stop from killing Harry not herself. It is obvious James and Lily knew that Voldemort was after James and Harry only. She ran to get Harry and leave, but Voldemort did not waste time toying with James and just killed him and went after Harry. Lily, not having enough time to get Harry and run, was attempting to shield Harry. She did the only thing she could do with Voldemort at the time and was to plead for her son's life, not her own mind you, and since Voldemort is...well Voldemort he pushed her aside. She then lunged between Voldemort's wand and Harry screaming at the same time out of sheer panic and fear for her son's life. Having got in the way she died instead of Harry. That is my assumption anyway. Harry was "saved" by her love since she placed herself between Voldemort and Harry out of her will and passion. Melody From FalconKenobi at aol.com Sun Aug 18 14:55:15 2002 From: FalconKenobi at aol.com (FalconKenobi at aol.com) Date: Sun, 18 Aug 2002 10:55:15 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] re: Godric'sHollow Message-ID: <16d.123dd096.2a910f53@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 42880 In a message dated 18/08/02 12:02:34 GMT Daylight Time, catlady at wicca.net writes: > << Godric's Hollow, which I imagine to be a wizarding village west of > Bristol in South Wales >> > > So do I, but canon unfortunately says that Hogsmeade is the only > wizarding village in Britain. so could Godric's Hollow be a wizarding settlement larger than a village, be a town or something? Cos muggles/wizarding world are SO seperate that it strikes me as strange that there's only *one* separate settlement. So while hogsmeade is the only village, there could be whole towns full of wizards out there, right? LPS Cassie ~So get on your knees boy and do what you should If ya wanna be bad ya gotta be good ~ http://www.aemslash.co.uk - Every Generation Has A Legend:The Fanfiction Of Adelaide Elizabeth Morgan http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cassie_fic [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From eloiseherisson at aol.com Sun Aug 18 19:56:44 2002 From: eloiseherisson at aol.com (eloiseherisson at aol.com) Date: Sun, 18 Aug 2002 15:56:44 EDT Subject: Old topics need new tricks (was:Re:Harry's Holly Wand and associated symbolism) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42881 In a message dated 18/08/2002 15:25:14 GMT Standard Time, SaalsG at cni-usa.com writes: > > ~Phyllis replied: > > My theory on why JKR chose holly as Harry's wand wood is because > > holly is associated with Christmas, and I am of the belief that > Harry is meant to save the wizarding world from evil as Christ was > sent to save the world from evil. >>>>>>>>>> > > > Talisman replies: > I strongly agree that in matching Harry to a holly wand Rowling has > provided a critical symbolic key to the HP series. Holly is > traditionally associated with the cycle of death/rebirth, or > reserection, being a plant that remains green in winter. (An answer > as well to those who have opined about Harry's death in threads such > a "Horrible to Write.") > > People who are interested in this topic and who weren't around back in May might like to know that we had a huge discussion about it back then, under the Stoned!Harry heading. It starts with Caroline's explanation of some of the alchemical symbolism used by JKR (#38542) and goes on to find masses of potential Christian symbolism, indications that Harry will sacrifice himself, the meanings of and contrasts between Voldemort's yew wand and Harry's Holly wand, etc, etc. It was a very fruitful discussion and I recommend reading it as a lot of research on this topic has already been done and posted by members of this group. (Putting 'wand symbolism' into the archive search engine does link to the Stoned!Harry thread, amongst others. I know, because I just tried it.) I believe Stoned!Harry has also been written up for Hypothetic Ally, but the link doesn't seem to be working at the moment (not for me, anyway). (A walk down Hypothetic Alley will inform you of many of the theories currently floating around.) Eloise [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From rvotaw at i-55.com Sun Aug 18 21:03:05 2002 From: rvotaw at i-55.com (Richelle Votaw) Date: Sun, 18 Aug 2002 16:03:05 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: More about Harry's Holly Wand and associated symbolism References: <010001c246c3$9bd52780$5f4053d1@SaalsD> Message-ID: <002701c246fa$a675c6e0$d79fcdd1@istu757> No: HPFGUIDX 42882 Grace writes: > If anyone has used the Flower Essenses, Holly is one of the standard ones. > One use of Holly is described such: > "Holly is the chief remedy when there is a need for more love: > a. Abused > b. neglected > c. abandoned, uncared or discarded" Holly is also supposed to give such attributes as energy, power, strength and protection. In contrast to Yew (Voldemort's wand) which is connected with defense, pentenance and sorrow. Holly is also sent by one asking "Am I forgotten?" which connects with the Flower Essenses that Grace mentioned. Richelle From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Sun Aug 18 21:35:03 2002 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (bboy_mn) Date: Sun, 18 Aug 2002 21:35:03 -0000 Subject: Godric'sHollow In-Reply-To: <16d.123dd096.2a910f53@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42883 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., FalconKenobi at a... wrote: > In a message dated 18/08/02 12:02:34 GMT Daylight Time, > catlady at w... writes: > > > > << Godric's Hollow, which I imagine to be a wizarding village > > west of Bristol in South Wales >> > > > > So do I, but canon unfortunately says that Hogsmeade is the only > > wizarding village in Britain. LPS replied: > > so could Godric's Hollow be a wizarding settlement larger than a > village, be a town or something? Cos muggles/wizarding world are > SO seperate that it strikes me as strange that there's only *one* > separate settlement. So while hogsmeade is the only village, there > could be whole towns full of wizards out there, right? > > LPS > Cassie > > ~So get on your knees boy and do what you should > If ya wanna be bad ya gotta be good ~ > bboy_mn adds: Diagon Alley is a pretty substantial wizarding area that exist inside London; VERY substantial in fact. But, of course, London is not an all wizarding village/town/city. I suggest that in many muggle communities there are lots of wizards living either in (somewhat) selcusion like the Burrow, or are hidden with in a given community in a wizarding sub-dimension/parallel universe like Diagon Alley. We know that many wizards live outside of Hogsmead and Diagon Alley. There are many references in the book to these people (the Diggory's for example and the most obvious, the Weasley's). So, in my book, the only logical conclusions are that they are integrated with the muggle in some cases, they are amoung them but isolated from muggles in others, or they exist in an unseen part of the community similar to Diagon Alley. Godric's Hollow by no means has to be either/or. No reason why it can't be a combined Wizard/Muggle community and still allow wizards to live very independant of the muggles. Also, Godric's Hollow could be the name of the wizarding village that is contained inside a muggle village with a different name. Godric's Hollow could be the equivalent of Diagon Alley, except it's in the city of Cardiff, Wales. (just west of Bristol) Additional Question: on a similar subject- Is the Weasley's Burrow, in the wizard's parallel universe similar to Diagon Alley, or is it just muggle space that the Weasley's have enchanted so the muggles will ignore it? bboy_mn From bdmorrp at budget.state.ny.us Sun Aug 18 22:29:28 2002 From: bdmorrp at budget.state.ny.us (erisedstraeh2002) Date: Sun, 18 Aug 2002 22:29:28 -0000 Subject: Polyjuice Potion Only *Tastes* Like Cabbage Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42884 Erm, I hate to shoot a can(n)on through the theory, but my version of the books make no mention of Polyjuice Potion *smelling* like cabbage. In the US paperback ed. of CoS, it reads "Pinching his nose, Harry drank the potion down in two large gulps. It *tasted* like overcooked cabbage" (p. 216). In the US paperback ed. of SS, it reads that Mrs. Figg's "whole house *smelled* of cabbage" (p. 22). Now I know that taste and smell are highly correlated, but I think there's a strong case to be made that Polyjuice Potion does *not* smell like cabbage. If Polyjuice smelled like cabbage, why would no one have noticed such a strong odor emanating from Myrtle's bathroom (especially since Filch was standing guard where Mrs. Norris was attacked, in the corridor right outside that bathroom)? Moreover, Snape the Potions Master is always lurking, so why would he have not investigated a cabbage smell coming from the bathroom, especially since he knew that boomslang skin was stolen from his private stores and presumably would have linked boomslang skin and a cabbage smell with Polyjuice Potion? In addition, Fake!Moody was brewing the stuff for 10 months, and Snape also noticed missing boomslang skin during that period - no one noticed a cabbage smell over the course of an entire school year? Of course, I now know that Scholastic takes such liberties as changing words (such as "curse" to "murder"), so if someone has a UK version that says that Polyjuice Potion smells like cabbage, I'll send my can(n)on back to the armory. Cheers, Phyllis From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Sun Aug 18 23:19:44 2002 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (bboy_mn) Date: Sun, 18 Aug 2002 23:19:44 -0000 Subject: It Smells like Cabbage! .....eeeuuuuwww.... Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42885 Sorry but I think you are making too big a deal about this smell of cabage thing. (sub-topic of the search for the meaning of Arabella and other Mrs. Figg related discussion) Have you ever been in an old person home that didn't smell, especially, if they were not psycho cleaning fanatics like Aunt Petunia? They all smell funny, and smell even worse if the person happens to fancy cats. Mrs. Figg is an old English person, her house smells like cooked cabbage. Mr. Perkins, who Mr. Weasley borrowed the tent from, is an old English person and his tent smells like cabbage. I think the key here is 'old English person', not polyjuice or some other grand conspiracy theory. As far as the polyjuice tasting like cooked cabbage, I think the flavor is related to the person who donated a part of themselves to the potion. Just as each potion took on a distinct appearance related to the person who's hair was in the potion; I say that they also took on a distinct flavor reflecting the person who's hair was in the potion. But, at some point, every author has to compromise on detail. If the didn't, a seven year story would take seven years to read; actually, in my opinion, more like 12 years to read. So Rowling only gave us Harry's perspective. I think Mrs. Figg is going to be the obvious, an old witch who lived near Harry to keep an eye on him. Either that, or Rowling is just jerking us around. Common magicians trick, misdirection; making us look in one place when the real action is in another. Rowling doesn't leave much to chance or miss any details, but she does have an unusual sense of humor, maybe the Mrs. (cabbage) Figg and the Arabella Figg are just fodder for the Yahoo Groups mill until the next book comes out. Nothing but Rowling's way of having us on. Hey, it could happen. bboy_mn From purple_801999 at yahoo.com Mon Aug 19 00:08:23 2002 From: purple_801999 at yahoo.com (purple_801999) Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 00:08:23 -0000 Subject: Harry and the Dursleys Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42886 I have started to wonder, what with all of the speculaton on the magic alluded to by Voldemort about Harry being protected while in the care of his blood relatives, if the Dursleys know this. And if they do know or if they ever find this out,do they hate Harry enough to turn him over to his enemies? Sometimes I wonder if they do. I know they do their best to make Harry as miserable as possible, but to actual kill him? Uncle Vernon I know would probably have no problem in doing so, but would Petunia willingly give up the only other blood relation she has left besides her son and the last link to her sister no matter how despised? And speaking of Petunia and family I wonder if Voldemort reign of terror included the killing of James and Lily's parents? It seems strange that both sets of granparents are dead when James and Lily are both still so young and may explain Petunia's hatred of Lily even more. -Olivia, who has way too much time to speculate with From htfulcher at comcast.net Sun Aug 18 19:00:59 2002 From: htfulcher at comcast.net (marephraim) Date: Sun, 18 Aug 2002 19:00:59 -0000 Subject: I'm not sure this is the right forum, but... about the mysteries FAQ Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42887 The website "http://www.i2k.com/~svderark/lexicon/faq/index.html" has a FAQ. (i'm assuming this group is related. if not forgive me.) There are several 'mysteries' listed there that seem (to me, at least) not to be so mysterious. I'm listing some possible answers below. Some me may be more plausible than others, but what do you think? "How does Hagrid "fly" to the Hut on the Sea? On a broomstick? If so, where is it the next morning? Superman style?" Maybe Dumbledore apparated him (a kind of flying?) "Hagrid and Harry take the boat that the Dursleys used to get to the Hut on the Sea in Chapter 3 of SS. How then do the Dursleys get to land?" With some difficulty. They would have to wait for the man who rented it to them to show up, etc.. "How can Sirius Black apparently openly own his flying motorcycle and yet Mr. Weasley's flying Ford Anglia is illegal? " When was the law passed? There is a comment in CoS to the effect that Mr Weasley himself wrote the law in question. "What was the size of this motorcycle? It was described as a giant motorcycle at one point, but if so, how did Sirius ride it? If it wasn't giant-sized, how would Hagrid have ridden it? " A magic motorcycle might change size to accomodate the driver. "Hermione indicates on the Hogwarts Express that she has already tried a few simple spells for practice. Why didn't she get a letter from the Ministry of Magic as Harry did in CoS? " Perhaps the rule only applies after one has enrolled in the school. "How does Dobby (then the Malfoys' house elf) visit Harry in the hospital wing after the Quidditch match? " This one has to be a real error. Consider when Dobby visits Harry in the Hospital Wing. There is a snap! and he's gone.... In SS, Harry's glasses are supposedly "taped" together in the middle because they'd been broken by Dudley so frequently. In CoS, Harry breaks his glasses (which appear to be whole) when he lands in Knockturn Alley. Were his glasses repaired at some point during SS By Hermione after the yellow scabbers charm fails (at least in the movie this is so, although I don't find it in the UK version of PS). "Why would Lupin not transform when the boggart turns into the moon? If it's because it's not really the moon, then why does Harry hear his parents' dying moments and faint when the boggart turns into a dementor? " Trauma? Boggart attempts to frighten you. Lupin would be frightened of the full moon but not physically transforemed by it. Harry, on the other hand, because he's been affected by Voldemort's attack, mentally 'relives' an experience he would not otherwise remember. "If it's available in bottles, why was Lupin so surprised and suspicious when Harry says Ron and Hermione brought him some back (explaining why he'd tasted it before)? " Believing that Harry had not had an opportunity to visit the village he thought it would be a new experience. Harry's instant and delighted recognition would make him suspicious. On the other hand, Rowling has a knack for describing an event or reaction according to how Harry and his compatriots perceive it. Thus Lupin's "reaction" to Harry's recognition of the Butterbeer could be no more than a description of Harry's sense of guilt and fear of discovery for his unauthorised trip into town. I haven't finished my 3rd reading of PoA and GoF, so I have no comments on the remainder of FAQs. Sorry if this duplicates other msgs; it just struck me as probable answers to these particular questions. From catlady at wicca.net Mon Aug 19 02:06:59 2002 From: catlady at wicca.net (catlady_de_los_angeles) Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 02:06:59 -0000 Subject: The Burrow / the name Annabel / Arthur's Age / Death Eater Spawn / Mrs Figg Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42888 I can't believe this is the THIRD time I've written this e-mail -- my computer keeps eating it when I'm almost done. --- In HPforGrownups at y..., I wrote: << I have never understood WHY Malfoys share the common prejudice against giants and werewolves. Why would people who adore the Dark Lord >> and Dark Arts << despise Dark Creatures who are alleged to also serve the Dark Lord? >> I quoted it here to add "and Dark Arts". --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "bboy_mn" wrote: << Is the Weasley's Burrow, in the wizard's parallel universe similar to Diagon Alley, or is it just muggle space that the Weasley's have enchanted so the muggles will ignore it? >> The Burrow is in the Muggle universe: remember when three Muggle taxi-cabs arrive there to take everyone to King's Cross station? --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Eloise the Hedgehog wrote: << However, the site also says that Annabel is *Hebrew*. >> Maybe that site understands "Annabelle" as I did before I read your information: as a fancied-up form of "Anna", which does come from the Hebrew name Hannah, which IIRC means 'grace'. A portmanteau of Hebrew-derived "Anna" and Latin-derived "Bella". --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Ginny Merrimom wrote: << HF said: <<< However, it's *Arthur* who calls [Mundungus Fletcher] old, and Arthur is presumably around 65-70 years >>> Um, I thought we estimated that his oldest child was at most 30, and that Arthur and Molly got started pretty soon after leaving Hogwarts, so that makes him more like 50. >> I don't know any canon for Arthur and Molly having started having children soon after leaving school. Personally, I think they were in school with Riddle and MacGonagall, in which case they MUST have waited a while before having children. They could afford to wait: with those long wizarding lifespans, I expect witches have menopause around age 80 instead of around age 50. So a hypothetical witch could be 60 when she STARTS her family. On another tentacle, if Arthur was in school with Riddle and MacGonagall, then he wasn't in school with Lucius Malfoy (who was younger than Riddle, if Draco can be believed.) --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Fyre Wood wrote: << As I was reading through the books, the names of the Death Eaters popped into my mind: Malfoy, Crabbe, Goyle, Nott, and many many more. However, have you all noticed that they're all about the same age and are all in the house of Slytherin? >> We don't know that Nott is in Slytherin. We don't know that Nott is male. We may know that Nott's initial is T, from QTTA check-out list, unless that is a sibling or cousin. By the way, neither Bulstrode nor Parkinson is given to us as the name of an adult Death Eater. << Is it a conspiracy that Malfoy, Crabbe, and Goyle are all the same age? Or perhaps was it a thing assigned by Voldemort issuing that on a certain date, Death Eaters were required to make new recruits for his soon to be new squad of Death Eaters? >> Yes. My theory is that Voldemort believes in Prophecies and Divination, and he discovered that it was written in the stars (or whatever) that a boy in Britain conceived around Halloween 1979 and born around Lammas 1980 would have exceptional magic powers. He wanted this boy's powers to be a weapon he could use AND he wanted to make sure that this boy's powers would not become a weapon for the Light Side. He figured that the way to do that was for the boy to be born and raised among his loyal followers. So he ordered his Death Eaters to go out and spawn at the appointed time, and they obeyed, but none of their children were the Prophesied Boy: HARRY, of course, was the Prophesied Boy. (I have a Britspeak problem with my theory: I imagine Voldemort telling his circle of Death Eaters what to do, and they all prostrated themselves and pledged obedience, but afterwards, Crabbe and Goyle (whom I imagine to be not too bright) asked Malfoy what had the Dark Lord ordered them to do, and Malfoy answered in language his thugs would understand. In US-speak, he would have said: "He told you to go home and knock up your wives", but "knock up" doesn't mean "impregnate" in UK-speak, and "he told you to put your wives in the family way" doesn't sound vulgar enough.) Also: look at all the names of Death Eaters we have been given in canon. Besides Malfoy, Crabbe, Goyle, and Nott, there was Avery, MacNair, Lestrange, Rozier, Wilkes, Karkaroff, Mulciber, Dolohov, Rookwood -- that's from memory. Our sources for the names of students in Harry's year are: the names of students Sorted in the Sorting Hat scene in Book 1, Ernie MacMillan added to that in his later appearance, and what the TV camera showed of JKR's hand-written list of all the students in Harry's year (it was in a show called "Harry Potter and Me" and a wise and kindly listie got screen-shots and put them in the Photo Section of this very YahooGroup). Between those sources, we know all the A thru L surnames of Harry's classmates, the T thru Z, and many of the other surnames; I myself am terribly confused about the Ms, the first on the hand-written list is MacDougal, Isobel (replacing a crossed-out name that looks like Kathrine), then there are three or four more Ms that I can't read, but assume to include MacMillan, Malfoy, and Moon ... *If* there are four, is the fourth Morag McDougal who was Sorted in the book or is Morag formerly Isobel, in which case there MIGHT be a MacNair. Who might be a girl and we don't know what House. We also have a really wretched lack of information on the Rs (not mentioned in the book and illegible on the document), so there MIGHT be a Rookwood or Rozier whom we have never heard (altho' HOLLYDAZE! tried to decipher them and got Rive- Rope- and Runc- in post # 32380 and around there). I suppose a child of the Lestranges might have had his/her name changed because of all the bad publicity... Even so, that doesn't seem like a very high proportion of Death Eaters succeeded in procreating on command. (More about that below.) --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Ginny Merrimom wrote: << Oooh, this is bleak. I think it is important, and here's why. If I were Voldemort [accessing latent evil personality traits now] and I wanted to ensure another generation of greatness, I would take care of that personally. >> I don't think he wanbted to 'ensure another generation of greatness': he planned to live forever and wouldn't have wanted to create any rivals. It was only servants he meant to create. << In other words, I'd knock up every willing or not-so-willing woman I could find. Sort of a one-man super race. See David Koresh (sp?) for a real world example. Your really loyal DEs (Malfoy, Crabbe, Goyle) would surely offer up their wives in a display of loyalty. >> I think Voldemort at that time could not have begotten his own heirs even if he had wanted to: I am convinced that he gave up sex organs as well as sex drive when he turned himself into a red-eyed snake-man in his pursuit of immortality. I believe that he was already the sexless red-eyed snake-man when he began recruiting Death Eaters: I suppose that he started recruiting as soon as he had made himself immortal. << As to why they're all male, that sort of thing is determined by the father (some men make more Y chromosome sperm). Or, more bleakly, he only wanted boys and so all girls were aborted or sacrificed at birth. >> As I mentioned above, for we know, Malfoy, Crabbe, Goyle (juniors) are the three boys and Nott, hypothetical MacNair, hypothetical Rookwood, hypothetical Rozier, and hypothetical Lestrange (whose name was changed) are five girls. Altho', speaking of sacrificed at birth, Voldemort failed to follow his predecessor Evil Overlords (Pharaoh and Herod, for two) in ordering all boys born around the appointed time to be thrown into the ocean at birth ... where the harmless ones would all drown, but the dangerous one would drift ashore to a foster family. << This explains why there seem to be so many only children, too. >> Does that mean you share my theory that many Death Eater families, such as Lucius and Narcissa Malfoy, didn't want to have children, at least not for a long time, but submitted to the Dark Lord about having this one? However, with those long wizarding lifespans I mentioned way up there, wizarding couples *could* choose to space their children at *twenty* year intervals and *still* have three children, even tho' each would have been raised pretty much as an only child. If any of the Death Eater were old (middle-aged) wizards (like Rookwood, who was a friend of Bagman's *dad*), they might have already had grand-children and great-grandchildren when Voldemort ordered them to make more babies. My theory on the low rate of compliance is that orphanage-raised Tom Riddle was a bit of a prude and only ordered them to get their wives pregnant, not kidnapped witches held captive under Imperius, and some of the wives were too old for child-bearing, and some of the men weren't married. --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "bboy_mn" wrote: << Rowling doesn't leave much to chance or miss any details, but she does have an unusual sense of humor, maybe the Mrs. (cabbage) Figg and the Arabella Figg are just fodder for the Yahoo Groups mill until the next book comes out. Nothing but Rowling's way of having us on.>> JKR confirmed it in an interview: http://www.geocities.com/aberforths_goat/ http://www.yahooligans.com/content/chat/jkrowlingchat.html Yahooligan_Zeb asks: Does Arabella Figg have an important role in the later books? jkrowling_bn: You'll be seeing Mrs. Figg in book five and you'll find out all about her http://www.scholastic.com/harrypotter/author/transcript2.htm Q : Is the Mrs. Figg with all the cats in the Dursleys' neighborhood the same Arabella Figg that Dumbledore mentioned at the end of book 4? JKR: Well spotted! From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Mon Aug 19 03:54:24 2002 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (bboy_mn) Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 03:54:24 -0000 Subject: The Burrow / the name Annabel / Arthur's Age / Death Eater Spawn / Mrs Figg In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42889 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "catlady_de_los_angeles" wrote: > I can't believe this is the THIRD time I've written this e-mail -- my > computer keeps eating it when I'm almost done. > > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., I wrote: (CatLady..) > > << I have never understood WHY Malfoys share the common prejudice > against giants and werewolves. Why would people who adore the Dark > Lord >> and Dark Arts << despise Dark Creatures who are alleged to > also serve the Dark Lord? >> > > I quoted it here to add "and Dark Arts". -- bboy_mn adds: -- Malfoys hate anyone they perceive to be their inferior, that certainly included giants and werewolves. They are allies with them because they (the nasty V and the DE's) believe they can manipulate them to thier own ends. It's also very, although falsely, reassuring to minimizes those and degrade those who you are secretly afraid of. -- end bboy_mn comment -- > > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "bboy_mn" wrote: > > << Is the Weasley's Burrow, in the wizard's parallel universe similar > to Diagon Alley, or is it just muggle space that the Weasley's have > enchanted so the muggles will ignore it? >> > CatLady... responded: > The Burrow is in the Muggle universe: remember when three Muggle > taxi-cabs arrive there to take everyone to King's Cross station? > -- bboy_mn comments to this part -- The taxis did not come to the Burrow (I'm pretty sure), they walked into town and called the taxi-cabs from the town Post Office (or something). Although, Mr. Weasley did drive his car out of the Burrow and to London. So, my personal vote is for the Burrow to be in muggle space with Apathy charms or something similar that make the muggles ignore it. Remember when they practiced Quidditch at the paddock in the grove of trees near the Burrow; they had to be careful not to fly above the treetops of the muggles would see them. -- end bboy_mn commnent this part -- ..... BNS ..... (Big Nastly Snip) ... > ... snip... and what the TV camera showed of JKR's hand-written list > of all the students in Harry's year (it was in a show called "Harry > Potter and Me" and a wise and kindly listie got screen-shots and put > them in the Photo Section of this very YahooGroup). -- bboy_mn adds: -- I downloaded the name list images, and increased the contrast and sharpened them. The (my) photos as photos don't look that good, but the writing is sharper. If the moderator feel that these additional photos don't really help or add anything, my heart won't be broked if they decide to delete them. Added some other unrelated images too. -- end bboy_mn comment-- .... BNUHS .... (Big Nasty Ugly Horrible Snip) ... > > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "bboy_mn" wrote: > > << Rowling doesn't leave much to chance or miss any details, but she > does have an unusual sense of humor, maybe the Mrs. (cabbage) Figg > and the Arabella Figg are just fodder for the Yahoo Groups mill until > the next book comes out. Nothing but Rowling's way of having us on.>> > > JKR confirmed it in an interview: > http://www.geocities.com/aberforths_goat/ > > http://www.yahooligans.com/content/chat/jkrowlingchat.html > Yahooligan_Zeb asks: Does Arabella Figg have an important role in the > later books? > jkrowling_bn: You'll be seeing Mrs. Figg in book five and you'll find > out all about her > > http://www.scholastic.com/harrypotter/author/transcript2.htm > Q : Is the Mrs. Figg with all the cats in the Dursleys' neighborhood > the same Arabella Figg that Dumbledore mentioned at the end of book 4? > JKR: Well spotted! -- bboy_mn responds: -- Buy you snipped out the part where I said "I think Mrs. Figg is going to be the obvious, an old witch who lived near Harry to keep an eye on him". So I agree with the obvious assessment that Mrs. 'Cabbage/Cat Smell' Figg is Arabella Figg and that she is significant. I was just saying the the Arabella/young/polyjuice/secret_love/ Figg was stretching the imagination a little too far. It was a fun thought though. -- bboy_mn END -- bboy_mn From psychic_serpent at yahoo.com Mon Aug 19 04:08:41 2002 From: psychic_serpent at yahoo.com (psychic_serpent) Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 04:08:41 -0000 Subject: I'm not sure this is the right forum, but... about the mysteries FAQ In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42890 You propose some intriguing solutions to some of these problems. I, too, don't really think of some of these things as "mysteries" so much as things which JKR hasn't gone out of her way to explain as they're outside the scope of the story. (Although I classify a couple of them as Flints.) --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "marephraim" wrote: > "How does Hagrid "fly" to the Hut on the Sea? On a broomstick? If > so, where is it the next morning? Superman style?" > > Maybe Dumbledore apparated him (a kind of flying?) All evidence in the books says to me that Apparition only works on the person doing the Apparating. I believe that this, for instance, is one possible reason that Lily cannot Apparate with Harry to safety when Voldemort attacks them at Godric's Hollow. I believe you can only take inanimate objects with you when you are Apparating. (Hence, you could take luggage on a trip, for instance, as long as it's not Luggage as Terry Pratchett defines it...but I digress.) Another possible reason that Lily didn't Apparate to safety is that anti-Apparition spells could have been put on the premises, so it was impossible to Apparate or Disapparate there, as at Hogwarts. It would be sensible to have a security measure like this in place, in addition to the Fidelius Charm. There is nothing in Harry's PoA memories of that night to indicate that Voldemort Apparated to the cottage; he could have Apparated outside the range of such anti- Apparition spells (if they were in fact used) and walked to the Potter home. > "Hagrid and Harry take the boat that the Dursleys used to get to > the Hut on the Sea in Chapter 3 of SS. How then do the Dursleys > get to land?" > > With some difficulty. They would have to wait for the man who > rented it to them to show up, etc.. You are probably right. The other possible answer is that I believe JKR thought swimming to the mainland would have served the Dursleys right. In other words, I don't think JKR cares a fig for the Dursleys and doesn't care to communicate how they managed. The important part of the story is Harry. (Although, to play devil's advocate, JKR might have had Vernon get quite shirty with Harry later about them being stranded. Seems a little like a missed opportunity. Vernon certainly wouldn't have been pleased about this.) > "How can Sirius Black apparently openly own his flying motorcycle > and yet Mr. Weasley's flying Ford Anglia is illegal? " > > When was the law passed? There is a comment in CoS to the effect > that Mr Weasley himself wrote the law in question. I think this is the first thing you've mentioned that qualifies as a Flint. From what I've seen, there is abundant evidence that there are many, many things that hadn't occurred to JKR when she wrote the first book, and when she wrote them later, they couldn't really be fully reconciled with the first book. Anything that violates the statues against charming Muggles objects--like the motorcycle--or children performing magic out of school--like Hermione's experimental spells--falls into this category. I believe JKR simply hadn't thought about these wizarding laws when she started the series. > "What was the size of this motorcycle? It was described as a giant > motorcycle at one point, but if so, how did Sirius ride it? If it > wasn't giant-sized, how would Hagrid have ridden it? " > > A magic motorcycle might change size to accomodate the driver. Now THAT'S an original explanation! I rather like that one. If someone else has suggested it, I haven't seen it. The other possible answer is that JKR has said herself (and her Flints are usually testimony to this) that she's terrible with numbers. She describes Hagrid as being about ten feet tall, IIRC. I don't think she's really thought about the ways in which a ten-foot-tall man would interact with the world. She also says his feet are like baby dolphins and his hands are like the lids of dust-bins. This is a very strangely proportioned person, you have to admit. I put it down to her problems with numbers and shrug over it, frankly. > "Hermione indicates on the Hogwarts Express that she has already > tried a few simple spells for practice. Why didn't she get a > letter from the Ministry of Magic as Harry did in CoS? " See the above about the things JKR hadn't thought of when she started the HP books. > Perhaps the rule only applies after one has enrolled in the > school. That may come close if there is any explanation at all. After all, Harry was doing accidental magic for many years. Perhaps they really DON'T get on students, especially in Muggle environments, until after they've started school. Surely Hermione was doing some magic unintentionally before the age of eleven. Although, personally, I also subscribe to the idea that someone has to report the student in question, that the Ministry isn't just monitoring for magic in general. No reporting, no letter from the IUMO. That level of monitoring would be quite a job. > "How does Dobby (then the Malfoys' house elf) visit Harry in the > hospital wing after the Quidditch match? " > > This one has to be a real error. Consider when Dobby visits Harry > in the Hospital Wing. There is a snap! and he's gone.... I don't understand why this is considered a mystery. Dobby visits Harry because he has obviously been hanging about Hogwarts. He charmed the Bludger to go after Harry (that's why he was in the hospital wing). This is all in the books, plus the fact that the anti-Apparition thing doesn't seem to apply to house-elves (probably what they do isn't really defined as Apparating). > In SS, Harry's glasses are supposedly "taped" together in > the middle because they'd been broken by Dudley so frequently. In > CoS, Harry breaks his glasses (which appear to be whole) when he > lands in Knockturn Alley. Were his glasses repaired at some point > during SS > By Hermione after the yellow scabbers charm fails (at least in the > movie this is so, although I don't find it in the UK version of > PS). If they were, I think JKR simply felt it was too inconsequential to mention it. There's no reason to assume that he couldn't have worked out a way to fix them himself once he started school, or another student could have fixed them for him. > "Why would Lupin not transform when the boggart turns into the > moon? If it's because it's not really the moon, then why does > Harry hear his parents' dying moments and faint when the boggart > turns into a dementor?" > Trauma? Boggart attempts to frighten you. Lupin would be > frightened of the full moon but not physically transforemed by it. > Harry, on the other hand, because he's been affected by > Voldemort's attack, mentally 'relives' an experience he would not > otherwise remember. I think you're on to something. I never thought of Lupin transforming when seeing a mere facsimile of the moon, as it wasn't really the moon. It is true, however, that Harry reacts to a fake dementor as one would to a real one. The difference, as you noted, is probably that one thing transforms you physically, regardless of whether you believe in it, and the other relies to a certain extent on you having a psychological reaction to it. I also have no idea why it's considered a mystery why Lupin reacted to Harry's reaction to butterbeer. I was never struck by that; it may be available in bottles, but it's possible that it's not available that way at the Three Broomsticks, that you'd have to go elsewhere (specifically, someplace students are not usually allowed to go). --Barb http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Psychic_Serpent http://www.schnoogle.com/authorLinks/Barb From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Mon Aug 19 08:58:01 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 08:58:01 -0000 Subject: Polyjuice problems In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42891 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "merimom3" wrote: > I'm really enjoying the speculation about cross-gender and > pregnancies using polyjuice. I have no answers on the matter (only > Jo does, of course), but it did suggest to me another line of > questioning. I call it Polyjuice squared. If Abigail takes > polyjuice to become Betty, can Abigail-as-Betty take more polyjuice > and become Cathy? > > Say Abigail is a double agent, pretending to be Betty to spy on > Voldemort for Dumbledore. Voldie, not knowing Betty is really > Abigail-as-Betty, cooks up a plot that involves Betty polyjuicing > into Cathy. When Abigail-as-Betty drinks the new brew, will she > turn into Cathy? Or will nothing happen? Or will there be some > sort of weird reaction where she becomes Abigail-as-half-Betty-half- > Cathy? Does it depend on when her next dose of polyjuice was due > (if it was almost time, the new brew would work, but if she had just > takes the Betty juice, the Cathy juice wouldn't work)? Speculate at > will. > > Ginny I'm very partial to the theory that multiple magical effects combine in unpredictable ways (just like what happened in the train with that discusting Draco in GoF). Following that reasoning, taking a polyjuice potion when already in the effects of another would have unpredictable results: you'd be half-and-half, for example. And the worst thing is that the effects wouldn't have to disapear in an hour: remeber when Hermione drank a wrong Polijuice Potion? It lasted her for more than an hour, which means that even if the *correct* PP last only for an hour, a *wrong* PP potion can have an extended duration (I'm willing to say it could be a permanent effect, since Pomphrey had to operate Hermione, or at least use othe poultices and then bandages). Hope that helps, Grey Wolf From eloiseherisson at aol.com Mon Aug 19 09:58:59 2002 From: eloiseherisson at aol.com (eloiseherisson at aol.com) Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 05:58:59 EDT Subject: Cabbage-smelling Brits, Arabella and vulgar expressions Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42892 In a message dated 19/08/2002 00:20:30 GMT Standard Time, bboy_mn at yahoo.com writes: > Have you ever been in an old person home that didn't smell, > especially, if they were not psycho cleaning fanatics like Aunt Petunia? As it happens, yes. > > They all smell funny, and smell even worse if the person happens to > fancy cats. > > Mrs. Figg is an old English person, her house smells like cooked cabbage. > > Mr. Perkins, who Mr. Weasley borrowed the tent from, is an old English > person and his tent smells like cabbage. > > I think the key here is 'old English person', not polyjuice or some > other grand conspiracy theory. I rigorousy deny that when I get old (or even older!) that my house will inevitably smell of cabbage because of my nationality! My mother's house didn't smell of cabbage (dog, yes, but then it had for years, that was a function of the dog and the fact that people who live with animals stop noticing their odour, not of her age). My in-laws house doesn't smell bad. It smells different from ours (and the kids always say they like the smell of Grandma's house) because she uses different cleaning products, cosmetics, etc. Nor does my aged aunt's. Or is your point that cabbage is particularly English? Do you think an old Welsh person's house smell of leeks or an old Scottish person's of neeps? What do elderly Americans' houses smell of? I agree that there is a problem of why the trio's potion wasn't smelled out. But then, there is also the problem about why the smoke it produced wasn't noticed either (and the same problems go for Crouch Jr's potion, too). >I think Mrs. Figg is going to be the obvious, an old witch who lived >near Harry to keep an eye on him. Either that, or Rowling is just >jerking us around. Common magicians trick, misdirection; making us >look in one place when the real action is in another. Rowling doesn't >leave much to chance or miss any details, but she does have an unusual >sense of humor, maybe the Mrs. (cabbage) Figg and the Arabella Figg >are just fodder for the Yahoo Groups mill until the next book comes >out. Nothing but Rowling's way of having us on. Now come on, *I'm* the person in the group who says boring things like that! ;-) (But we *do* know that they are the same person. I see Catlady's now posted the evidence for this.) ................. On Arabella (this has got OT, so I'll acknowledge it here rather than give it a post of its own), Catlady (take 10 points for deriving my name): >Eloise<< However, the site also says that Annabel is *Hebrew*. >> >Maybe that site understands "Annabelle" as I did before I read your >information: as a fancied-up form of "Anna", which does come from the >Hebrew name Hannah, which IIRC means 'grace'. A portmanteau of >Hebrew-derived "Anna" and Latin-derived "Bella". Eloise: Which would be quite logical, only they give "Anna" as Hebrew for "grace", "Annabel" as Hebrew for "eagle heroine" and "Arabella" as Teutonic for "Eagle heroine". ................. Oh, and on Catlady's Britspeak problem, trying to think of a suitably vulgar expression for Malfoy to use to get across Voldemorts instructions to the DEs to go home and procreate, there is an English word with which we are all familiar which will do very well (and I think, in Catlady's scenario, is the inevitable choice), but which is inapproriate for use on this list. As Woody Allen put it (someone having supposedly dented his fender, or 'bumper', in Britspeak), "I told him, 'Be fruitful and multiply,' but not in those words." Eloise [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Ali at zymurgy.org Mon Aug 19 12:46:08 2002 From: Ali at zymurgy.org (alhewison) Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 12:46:08 -0000 Subject: Cabbage-smelling Brits, Arabella and vulgar expressions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42893 Bboy writes Have you ever been in an old person home that didn't smell, especially, if they were not psycho cleaning fanatics like Aunt Petunia? They all smell funny, and smell even worse if the person happens to fancy cats. Mrs. Figg is an old English person, her house smells like cooked cabbage. Mr. Perkins, who Mr. Weasley borrowed the tent from, is an old English person and his tent smells like cabbage. I think the key here is 'old English person', not polyjuice or some other grand conspiracy theory. To which Eloise eloquently resonds:- I rigorousy deny that when I get old (or even older!) that my house will inevitably smell of cabbage because of my nationality! My mother's house didn't smell of cabbage (dog, yes, but then it had for years, that was a function of the dog and the fact that people who live with animals stop noticing their odour, not of her age). My in-laws house doesn't smell bad. It smells different from ours (and the kids always say they like the smell of Grandma's house) because she uses different cleaning products, cosmetics, etc. nor does my aged aunt's. > Or is your point that cabbage is particularly English? Do you think an old Welsh person's house smell of leeks or an old Scottish person's of neeps? > What do elderly Americans' houses smell of? > I was very "interested" in Bboy's comments. I hope he was merely trying to provoke a reaction, and wasn't being deliberately offensive ,These were certainly rather strange notions to express on this group anyway. Just as a matter of interest why would JKR (an English person) want to comment on the smell of cabbage, which is obviously fairly unpleasant if it was to deride older members of her nationality? It certainly doesn't seem to be an "in joke" or something that other English people are aware of ? Bboy says:- > >I think Mrs. Figg is going to be the obvious, an old witch who lived near Harry to keep an eye on him. Bboy you could well be right - but that is the beauty about the Potter verse at the moment there are still lots of possible interpretations. Only JKR can prove us right or wrong. Eloise again:- > On Arabella (this has got OT, so I'll acknowledge it here rather than give it a post of its own), > >< However, the site also says that Annabel is *Hebrew*. >> > Catlady had said:- > >Maybe that site understands "Annabelle" as I did before I read your information: as a fancied-up form of "Anna", which does come from the Hebrew name Hannah, which IIRC means 'grace'. A portmanteau of Hebrew-derived "Anna" and Latin-derived "Bella". > > Eloise: > Which would be quite logical, only they give "Anna" as Hebrew for "grace", "Annabel" as Hebrew for "eagle heroine" and "Arabella" as Teutonic for "Eagle heroine". At the risk of continuing an OT thread:- The Oxford book on Babies' Names says that Arabella is of "Scottish origin and uncertain etymolgy. It probably represents an alteration of An(n)abel. Under Annabel it says:- "Sometimes taken as an elaboration of Anna, but more probably an altered form of Amabel,an obsolete French name derived from the Latin amabilis. This book supports Catlady's version of Anna/Hannah - though the translation "eagle heroine" is nowhere to be seen or derived! Ali Who has yet to meet an English person either old or young whose house smelled of cabbages! From talisman22457 at yahoo.com Mon Aug 19 01:01:14 2002 From: talisman22457 at yahoo.com (talisman22457) Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 01:01:14 -0000 Subject: Old topics need new tricks (was:Re:Harry's Holly Wand and associated symbolism) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42894 Earier Talisman noted: > Holly is associated with the Celtic (esp. Scottish)sun-god Lugh,*patron of sorcery*, whose myth has many fertile comparisons with Harry's story: Lugh's feast day (July 31) is Harry's birthday; there is a prophesy that evil King Balor (Lugh's grandpa) will be killed by a grandson, which leads to his failed attempt to kill Lugh; Lugh is then raised under the care of a master magician, to keep him safe; when Balor (a Formonian) tries to take over the Tuatha de Danann, having killed their good king, Lugh emerges as the hero of the battle and becomes the new king of his people (the Tuatha). Eloise then suggested that "old subjects need new tricks" and informed that: People who are interested in this topic and who weren't around back in May might like to know that we had a huge discussion about it back then, under the Stoned!Harry heading. ***edited*** I recommend reading it as a lot of research on this topic has already been done and posted by members of this group. I believe Stoned!Harry has also been written up for Hypothetic Ally *** A walk down Hypothetic Alley will inform you of many of the theories currently floating around.) Eloise Talisman responds: In the original post, I noted that I found extant references to Lugh (e.g. Ronale7, Grandpa Voldemort thread)prior to posting. I was also aware that holly symbolism has already been discussed; however, the points about holly being associated with Lugh; Lugh being patron of Sorcerers; raised by a sorcerer; and,upon killing his evil grandpa, becoming the new leader of the Tuatha (mystical pre-Celtic folk) have not been previously discussed. In consideration of the interest in Stoned!Harry, here's a little something for you, Eloise. Lugh killed his evil grandfather with a *stone.* > Talisman From gandharvika at hotmail.com Mon Aug 19 01:41:34 2002 From: gandharvika at hotmail.com (Gail Bohacek) Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 01:41:34 +0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Azkaban Prison Blues (FILK) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42895 Azkaban Prison Blues (A FILK by Gail Bohacek to the Tune of _Folsom Prison Blues_ by Johnny Cash) Dedicated to Grey Wolf...no hard feelings. Sirius (with guitar): I feel dementors comin'...gliding 'round the bend I haven't felt happy since I don't know when I'm stuck in Azkaban Prison, an' time keeps draggin' by Got the joy sucked right outta me, I hang my head and cry This prison ain't got no locks, no bars you will find With dementors here, they feed you fear, you're trapped within your mind But I'm innocent I tell ya, they can't take that away from me That thought has kept me sane...that thought will set me free Wormtail he done framed me...said I killed James and Lil If I ever get outta here, he's the one I'm gonna kill An' this Fudge he just gave me the paper that he brought An' I see that rats a-picture...he's at Hogwarts This plan's become an obsession...anger's turned into rage Turn into a big black dog and slip right through this cage I'm a-swimmin' far from Azkaban, I can just now see the shore Now I'm bound for Hogwarts school...I'm gonna settle the score -Gail B. _________________________________________________________________ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx From mikezitz at charter.net Mon Aug 19 06:42:56 2002 From: mikezitz at charter.net (interstate999) Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 06:42:56 -0000 Subject: The Magical Room Hiden in Hogwarts Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42896 I hope this subject hasn't been discussed already. This is taken from the Comic Relief Interview with JK Rowling. Isaac -If you could travel to Hogwarts for an hour, what would you do there? JK Rowling - Go straight into a certain room, mentioned in book four which has certain magical properties Harry hasn't discovered yet! This is driving me nuts... What room, and what magical properties? I can only think of one new place in Hogwarts that is mentioned in book 4 ... The Perfects Bathroom. As far as magical properties ... where would we begin to speculate what powers this room may hold. I don't see JK as the mushy type of person travel to a magical world just to take a bath; there is something more here. This is my prediction: The bath lets you see into the past. This would help in explaining how we are to find out about so many things Harry has not run across in a book that suppose to be shorter than book 4. Furthermore in order for Harry to use the "Perfects" bathroom on a regular occasion, he must become a perfect himself, (Harry a Perfect ... HAHAHA). Ok, I know this theory has a lot of holes in it... I must have blinders on not to see the forest though the trees. I give up, Mike Zitzmann Hammond, LA. From finwitch at yahoo.com Mon Aug 19 11:21:45 2002 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 11:21:45 -0000 Subject: Revised: Polyjuice Potion: Gender? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42897 > Yoris wrote: > > > > Just a VERY SMALL note on DNA transformation > > > > Polyjuicing in HP series is CANON BASED, NOT DNA-transformation: > > scars and lost legs and lost eyes are NOT in your DNA, but Crouch jr. > > got them anyway when he converts to Mad-Eye Moody :) > > > > Yoris Grey wulf replied: > I think you have misunderstood what I meant with DNA- transformation. > This concept is that you turn into an exact copy of the person you're > polyjuicing down to their own DNA, which is the most improtant detail > from a sexual/reproduction point of view. I assume that all other > details are also identical, including things that are not detailed in > the DNA code (like, for example, the digital prints). In fact, your own > example of scars and lost legs seems to point to the DNA- transformation > more than illusion-based. > > How can this be? Well, an illusion cannot, traditionally, hide matter; > that is, if you're impersonting Moody, but still have both legs, an > illusion will make the missing one look and feel like the woden leg, > but it cannot make it disapear so you can wear Moody's real woodden > leg. Same goes for the eye. Of course, this inmediately presents any > number of logical problems (like: what if you're fatter than the one > you're impersonating?), which traditionally are ignored with a > convenient "it's magic", which is why I didn't discard the illusion- > based PP. > On the other hand, DNA_transformation changes ll and every cell in your > body to make them equal to the ones of the impersonateed person. This > is way you "grow" into the other person: the cells change when the > potion starts to develop. If you prefer, it can be called > "cell"-transformation instead of DNA-transformation, if it's clearer > that way. Thinking about it, however, I DO like the DNA (or cell) > transformation better than illusion-based, but there isn't enough canon > for me to choose one right away. I myself think it's not DNA-based - because things that come via accidents and experience are NOT in DNA. Things like the lost eye, for example. Copy each cell as it is -- well, it might - except for the fact that cells in your body are not in stasis. Cells die and are born every day. All DNA is included in the hair, though, so it does have some basis. However, if Fred got injured while playing Quidditch and George did not, they could use polyjuice to "heal" Fred temporarily using George's hair. Since they're *identical* twins no one would know the change... That matter does exclude DNA - the twins have identical DNA. No, it's not illusion either - because illusion could not use Magic Eye. Crouch Jr. *did* use it. It does make a perfect copy. Perfect in all except in mannerisms, knowledge etc. This is also reason why Crouch had to keep Moody alive. Because if you use *Dead* person's hair in polyjuice, you die, too. Magic can't heal death - so you'd stay dead even after the hour was gone. Spells dealing with mind don't pass - as knowledge doesn't... > Haggridd wrote: > > > He mentions two cases. In > > one pregnancy, the fetus would die when the polyjuice potion wore > > off. I guess it would be theoretically possible for a pregnancy to > > continue to term and deliver, if the polyjuice was taken throughout > > the pregnancy, as Barty Crouch, Jr. took PP throughout the > > schoolyear. > > I though quite a bit about this, but if the PP works in the DNA- > transformation hipothesis (sp?), the next time the pregnant man! woman > took the PP, he!she'd be taking it from someone who is *not* pregnant, > and thus the new body would not be ready to carry the child. Maybe not > within the next hour, but posibly about one month later (or so), when > the fetus becomes attached to the uterus, and the placenta is > established. It's difficult to tell were the mother stops and the child > starts during the pregnancy, but I'm sure that the mother must be > prepared in some way or another to carry a baby, which in this case > would not happen, and thus a misscarriage would happen. The womb prepares itself each month - as long as she is of fertile age. If the egg is not fertilised when it fastens on the womb's thicker layer, the layer comes out as menstrual blood. If it is, placenta and the baby begin to grow. The placenta is partly fetus and partly mother - but they *are* separated, even though they are very close. Placenta gives mother's body a hormonal signal. Speaking of polyjuice... the fetus is dependant of it's mother, but all the time separated. A man or woman taking polyjuice would not copy pregnancy. Finwitch From finwitch at yahoo.com Mon Aug 19 11:56:37 2002 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 11:56:37 -0000 Subject: Harry and the Dursleys In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42898 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "purple_801999" wrote: > > > I have started to wonder, what with all of the speculaton on the > magic alluded to by Voldemort about Harry being protected while in > the care of his blood relatives, if the Dursleys know this. Hmm.. if they read Dumbledore's letter, they do know. > And if they do know or if they ever find this out,do they hate Harry > enough to turn him over to his enemies? Sometimes I wonder if they > do. I know they do their best to make Harry as miserable as possible, > but to actual kill him? I don't think they'd kill him. To look at how things have *changed* about them... First, Harry lives in a cupboard and has no rights except school, being alive and clothed. Mostly neglected and left to his own. Then *the* letter comes. Someone wants to contact Harry - from magical world. The Dursleys violate one basic human rights of Harry's -- he's not allowed to recieve his letter. Not until Hagrid comes to give it. Dursleys treat harry worse than a prisoner. Second book- Dursleys are again doing something illegal - Trapping Hedwig - and locking Harry's things up as addition. Yet that is a bit less than the first... now he is more or less a prisoner. Third book it's just neglect. Harry realises that in truth, he's better off on his own. He escapes the Dursley-prison. Perhaps he got the idea from Sirius' escape on TV... Fourth- More liberties, a lot more, thanks to Sirius. This time no rules need to be broken for Harry to leave - although Dursleys are still reluctant. I guess the development goes further. Sirius will come closer to Harry - perhaps even free. I've imagined two scenes for that: Harry knows nothing and Sirius surprises him - or that Harry visits Sirius in attempt to "free" him while Sirius awaits his trial in jail. It would result in them having a discussion and Sirius refusing to leave until trial because he promised to do so... > Uncle Vernon I know would probably have no problem in doing so, but > would Petunia willingly give up the only other blood relation she has > left besides her son and the last link to her sister no matter how > despised? > > And speaking of Petunia and family I wonder if Voldemort reign of > terror included the killing of James and Lily's parents? It seems > strange that both sets of granparents are dead when James and Lily > are both still so young and may explain Petunia's hatred of Lily even > more. Or they died of cancer Lily could not heal... Or it was *them* who died in a car-accident. An accident happened when they were taking Lily from Diagon Alley, that Petunia saw *outside* and only Lily survived and only Petunia ended up in Orphanage while Lily went to magical world, marrying James Potter. Finwitch From ancientlady at deltav.org Mon Aug 19 12:30:40 2002 From: ancientlady at deltav.org (ancientlady2000) Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 12:30:40 -0000 Subject: Fudge: Ever-so-Evil or Bumbling Fool? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42899 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "alhewison" wrote: I can see JKR portraying Fudge as a > Chamberlain-like character. People don't need to be out and out evil > to cause massive harm to the *good*side. Judging from his attitudes and actions in the books so far, I expect this is *exactly* her plan. She has Voldemort as an example of power- hungry evil, Peter as someone who betrayed his friends to cling to a more powerful master, and a host of other people causing bad things to happen for various different motives. When I was reading this, a scrap of a quotation came to mind. Finally, I managed to locate the full quotation: "All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing" Edmund Burke I think that's what she wants to bring across. That evil is not only caused or helped by evil Voldemort-ish figures, but sometimes by people who - in normal circumstances - consider themselves "good", in that they lack the courage and moral fortitude to confront evil when it arises. Speaking of, here's another Edmund Burke quotation that fits the theme of the books as I expect they'll develop. Dumbledore calling in the "old crowd" and Fudge trying to pretend that nothing is going on lest the comfortable status quo be upset: "When bad men combine, the good must associate else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle." Edmund Burke (1729-1797) - English statesman Ancient Lady (who is fast becoming an Edmund Burke fan...) From bdmorrp at budget.state.ny.us Mon Aug 19 15:40:35 2002 From: bdmorrp at budget.state.ny.us (erisedstraeh2002) Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 15:40:35 -0000 Subject: The Magical Room Hiden in Hogwarts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42900 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "interstate999" wrote: Mike wrote (quoting from a JKR interview): > Isaac -If you could travel to Hogwarts for an hour, what would you > do there? > JK Rowling - Go straight into a certain room, mentioned in book > four which has certain magical properties Harry hasn't discovered > yet! > > This is driving me nuts... What room, and what magical properties? Now me: I don't think it's the Prefect's Bathroom, primarily because JKR says that the room is "mentioned," and the Prefect's Bathroom is more than "mentioned" (Harry actually goes there and takes a well-perfumed bath!). My guess is the "chamber pot" room that Dumbldore mentions during the Yule Ball that you may only see at 5 in the morning with a full bladder (loose translation, I don't have GoF with me!). Since we see the world through Harry's eyes, and Harry hasn't discovered its magical properties, neither have we. But, as always, we won't know for sure until JKR tells us! ~Phyllis who is waiting for one of our British listies to tell me that "mentioned" means something different in the UK than in the US From prefectmarcus at yahoo.com Mon Aug 19 16:34:27 2002 From: prefectmarcus at yahoo.com (prefectmarcus) Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 16:34:27 -0000 Subject: The Magical Room Hiden in Hogwarts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42901 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "interstate999" wrote: > I hope this subject hasn't been discussed already. > > This is taken from the Comic Relief Interview with JK Rowling. > > Isaac -If you could travel to Hogwarts for an hour, what would you > do there? > > JK Rowling - Go straight into a certain room, mentioned in book four > which has certain magical properties Harry hasn't discovered yet! > > This is driving me nuts... What room, and what magical properties? > > I can only think of one new place in Hogwarts that is mentioned in > book 4 ... The Perfects Bathroom. As far as magical properties ... > where would we begin to speculate what powers this room may hold. > Mike Zitzmann > Hammond, LA. There are actually three rooms first mentioned in GoF. They are: (1) The Prefect's Bathroom (2) The Chamberpot room. (3) The anteroom off the Great Hall. We also get to see the kitchens for the first time, though they are mentioned before. You will also note that JKR did NOT say, "mentioned for the first time in book four." Marcus From marc.nguyen at greenheck.com Mon Aug 19 16:36:50 2002 From: marc.nguyen at greenheck.com (Nguyen, Marc) Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 11:36:50 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups]the burrow Message-ID: <61E2AF8C78F2D211B0B70008C7F921D50616A98E@orion2.greenops.com> No: HPFGUIDX 42902 <<<<<<<<<<<<<< Additional Question: on a similar subject- Is the Weasley's Burrow, in the wizard's parallel universe similar to Diagon Alley, or is it just muggle space that the Weasley's have enchanted so the muggles will ignore it? bboy_mn >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IMHO, it's the latter of the two, although I'm not sure if the burrow is enchanted or not. In GOF I think, Uncle Vernon receives the letter full of stamps from the Weasleys. It says to reply via owl, since the postman doesn't ever come to their house much(due to lack of mail?). also, when they take the kids to Kings Crossing, Molly has to get taxis to come get them, so it is accessable to muggles. Marc From marc.nguyen at greenheck.com Mon Aug 19 16:40:40 2002 From: marc.nguyen at greenheck.com (Nguyen, Marc) Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 11:40:40 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Magical Room Hiden in Hogwarts Message-ID: <61E2AF8C78F2D211B0B70008C7F921D50616A98F@orion2.greenops.com> No: HPFGUIDX 42903 <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<, We also get to see the kitchens for the first time, though they are mentioned before. You will also note that JKR did NOT say, "mentioned for the first time in book four." Marcus >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I would vote for kitchen. The reason being that Dumbledore said that James Potter used the cloak mostly to sneak into the kitchen, to get food. But what if he sneaked there for something else, and the food bit is just a cover? Although if that were the case, Dumbledore would know about it, since he seems to know most things at Hogwarts, and he didn't want to tell Harry the real reason James used the cloak.... Marc From feliciarickmann at dsl.pipex.com Mon Aug 19 17:49:30 2002 From: feliciarickmann at dsl.pipex.com (feliciarickmann) Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 17:49:30 -0000 Subject: Mr Olivander's Opinion In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42904 > > bboy_mn throws in some more thoughts" > > Hi, I'm the guy who used the violin/violinist example. I agree with > the phrase, 'the wand chooses the wizard' as a figure of speech; but I > also agree with Grey Wolf when he says that the choosing of the wizard > is not done in an intelligent way. It is, as I suggested, a harmony or > magical resonance that the wand and wizard share. > > The wands done sit around after a student has left the shop saying, 'I > didn't like that kid, he had shifty eyes' or 'no, he was OK, but I > prefer a wizard who's taller'. > > While wands may have some inherent magical smartness, they are not > intelligent objects in a 'thinking' sort of way. > This would fit in with the concept of selective cogniscance that I have long thought wands possess which would labour under the label of *intelligence* for want of a better word. After all, a wand will sense when it is in the hands of a *beginner* and when it is picked up by a considerably more experienced wizard. Ron's wand, for example, is hand me down as he is, obviously, a beginner and can managed with this. While the 'shifty eyes' concept is a little silly there is some sense within the wand that it would perhaps be better suited to another than to the wizard who has picked it up. After all why would Mr Olivander go to such lengths to produce wands of such quality, if they can be produced by any tin pot worker working in a backstreet lock up. It does wand makers a disservice to devalue their work without putting wands, their workings and construction into a proper context. Felicia off to have supper 18.50 GMT From rusalka at ix.netcom.com Mon Aug 19 18:06:49 2002 From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants) Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 18:06:49 -0000 Subject: FILK: Hogwarts State of Mind Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42905 Hogwarts State of Mind To the tune of "New York State of Mind" by Billy Joel SCENE: #4 Privet Drive, last day of summer. Harry is anticipating his return to school. HARRY: Some kids don't like to be in school, They don't think it's cool, that is what they say. When they're there they just cannot wait for the holiday. But I'm hopping that red train between platforms ten and nine-- I'm in a Hogwarts state of mind. I've been where the Dursleys are, With their Muggle car and Majorca home. In Knockturn and Diagon I've been known to roam. I've been many places, but they're nowhere near as fine -- I'm in a Hogwarts state of mind. Oh, it's not easy doin' the Dursleys' chores, Being stuck here in the summertime gloom. Oh how I'm longing for the Quidditch scores, The Sorting Feast, the Common Room... No matter what I have to face, It's my favorite place, it's the place I fit. Don't care if Snape's on my case, or Malfoy's a git. Good-bye, Little Whinging, I'm done with your daily grind! I'm in a Hogwarts state of mind. Marina rusalka at ix.netcom.com From psychic_serpent at yahoo.com Mon Aug 19 19:36:44 2002 From: psychic_serpent at yahoo.com (psychic_serpent) Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 19:36:44 -0000 Subject: The Magical Room Hiden in Hogwarts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42906 > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "interstate999" wrote: > > Isaac -If you could travel to Hogwarts for an hour, what would > > you do there? > > > > JK Rowling - Go straight into a certain room, mentioned in book > > four which has certain magical properties Harry hasn't > > discovered yet! --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "prefectmarcus" wrote: > There are actually three rooms first mentioned in GoF. They are: > (1) The Prefect's Bathroom > (2) The Chamberpot room. > (3) The anteroom off the Great Hall. Actually, there is another, although it's debatable whether it qualifies for "room" status: the broom closet in which Rita Skeeter conducts an "interview" with Harry prior to the wand-weighing. > We also get to see the kitchens for the first time, though they > are mentioned before. > > You will also note that JKR did NOT say, "mentioned for the first > time in book four." No, but I don't believe she would have specified that the room was mentioned in book four if it were also mentioned in any other book. This would rule out the kitchens and leave the chamberpot room, the anteroom, the broom closet and the prefect's bathroom. The other important thing may be that she used the word "mentioned," rather than saying that Harry WENT to the room in question in book four. This is true for the anteroom, the broom closet and the prefect's bathroom. However, only the chamber pot room was merely MENTIONED and is never actually seen by Harry or anyone else other than Dumbledore. This room best fits the description of a place "mentioned" in book four. But for the life of me, I can't imagine what magical properties it might have. I could imagine far better properties for the broom closet, which might be a sort of Great Glass Elevator, if JKR is feeling like borrowing from Roald Dahl. The broom closet might travel up, down and sideways throughout Hogwarts, taking one anywhere one wants to go in the castle. I don't know about anyone else, but I think that would be very convenient, especially when fleeing Filch in the middle of the night. Or I could just be a sterling example of why you don't post with only four hours' sleep... --Barb http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Psychic_Serpent http://www.schnoogle.com/authorLinks/Barb From bdmorrp at budget.state.ny.us Mon Aug 19 20:19:29 2002 From: bdmorrp at budget.state.ny.us (erisedstraeh2002) Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 20:19:29 -0000 Subject: Why Does Lucius Still Have Influence After the Diary!Riddle Incident? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42907 I was hoping to get the input of the group on a question I have regarding Lucius Malfoy. At the end of CoS, Harry tells Lucius Malfoy that Ginny got the diary because Lucius gave it to her at Flourish and Blotts. Lucius responds by hissing "Prove it" (CoS, US paperback ed., p. 336). Dumbledore then says "Oh, no one will be able to do that...Not now that Riddle has vanished from the book. On the other hand, I would advise you, Lucius, not to go giving out any more of Lord Voldemort's old school things. If any more of them find their way into innocent hands, I think Arthur Weasley, for one, will make sure they are traced back to you" (pgs. 336-337). This implies that only Dumbledore and Harry know the truth about how Ginny got Riddle's diary. However, this must have been communicated to others, for on p. 340 we learn that "Lucius Malfoy had been sacked as a school governor." OK, so good, so far. The news was broadcast that Lucius was behind the diary, and he got what was coming to him (although I think Azkaban would have been more appropriate, but I digress). But here's where I get confused - how, after being sacked as a school governor, and presuming that his "sacking" was due to others learning about his role in the Diary!Riddle incident, did Lucius still have the influence needed to order Buckbeak's execution? The school governors send Hagrid a letter which reads "We have decided to uphold the official complaint of Mr. Lucius Malfoy, and this matter will therefore be taken to the Committee for the Disposal of Dangerous Creatures" (PoA p. 218, US paperback ed.). Hagrid then says "Them Disposal devils, they're all in Lucius Malfoy's pocket! Scared o'him!" (PoA, p. 219). And after the Trio learns that the executioner will be coming to the appeal, "Harry had a horrible feeling that the Committee for the Disposal of Dangerous Creatures had had its mind made up for it by Mr. Malfoy" (PoA, p. 316). Is it perhaps that the "Disposal devils" (an apt descriptor!) are Death Eaters like Lucius? We learn in GoF that Macnair, the executioner sent to kill Buckbeak, is a Death Eater. But why wouldn't the opinion of the rest of the Wizarding World matter? In addition, in GoF, Lucius and his family rate a seat in the top box. There's a reference to Lucius' generous donation to St. Mungo's - is this it, then, he's bought his way back into influence? While I know that it's not unheard of for someone to buy their way into influence, it just seems to me that no amount of money could make up for someone who was behind a plan to set a basilisk on a school full of (mostly) innocent students, with the aim of killing off non-pureblood wizards and, IMO, with the aim of finishing off the "good, great" Harry Potter himself. Any help you can provide on this would be much appreciated! ~Phyllis hoping this hasn't been endlessly discussed before From yrawen at ontheqt.org Mon Aug 19 20:43:01 2002 From: yrawen at ontheqt.org (yr awen) Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 16:43:01 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Why Does Lucius Still Have Influence After the Diary!Riddle Incident? References: Message-ID: <001601c247c1$03d5d200$badef718@kzo.chartermi.net> No: HPFGUIDX 42908 Phyllis wondered: In addition, in GoF, Lucius and his family rate a seat in the top box. There's a reference to Lucius' generous donation to St. Mungo's - is this it, then, he's bought his way back into influence? While I know that it's not unheard of for someone to buy their way into influence, it just seems to me that no amount of money could make up for someone who was behind a plan to set a basilisk on a school full of (mostly) innocent students, with the aim of killing off non-pureblood wizards and, IMO, with the aim of finishing off the "good, great" Harry Potter himself.<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< I don't think Lucius' little plot is part of general knowledge -- in combination with Lucius' former status as a known DE (although supposedly under Imperius ::snort::), I can't see *anyone* in the wizarding community letting that slide, no matter how generous a donor he is. I think Lucius' removal from the board of governors is more related to his blackmailing of the other eleven governors to suspend Dumbledore during the crisis. Additionally, I think Dumbledore more or less coerced Lucius into accepting the governors' decision without putting up a fuss; he more or less outlines all of Lucius' little plot to place the blame for the basilisk incident squarely on Ginny's head, thus discrediting the Weasley family. But, Dumbledore adds, as it didn't work, should Lucius attempt to give out "Voldemort's old school things" again, people (read: Arthur Weasley) would do their best to trace them back to him. HF. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From SALeathem at aol.com Mon Aug 19 20:36:10 2002 From: SALeathem at aol.com (SALeathem at aol.com) Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 16:36:10 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Why Does Lucius Still Have Influence After the Diary!Ridd... Message-ID: <37.2c20854d.2a92b0ba@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 42909 Phyllis wrote: << I was hoping to get the input of the group on a question I have regarding Lucius Malfoy. At the end of CoS, Harry tells Lucius Malfoy that Ginny got the diary because Lucius gave it to her at Flourish and Blotts. Lucius responds by hissing "Prove it" (CoS, US paperback ed., p. 336). Dumbledore then says "Oh, no one will be able to do that...Not now that Riddle has vanished from the book. On the other hand, I would advise you, Lucius, not to go giving out any more of Lord Voldemort's old school things. If any more of them find their way into innocent hands, I think Arthur Weasley, for one, will make sure they are traced back to you" (pgs. 336-337). This implies that only Dumbledore and Harry know the truth about how Ginny got Riddle's diary. However, this must have been communicated to others, for on p. 340 we learn that "Lucius Malfoy had been sacked as a school governor." OK, so good, so far. The news was broadcast that Lucius was behind the diary, and he got what was coming to him (although I think Azkaban would have been more appropriate, but I digress). But here's where I get confused - how, after being sacked as a school governor, and presuming that his "sacking" was due to others learning about his role in the Diary!Riddle incident, did Lucius still have the influence needed to order Buckbeak's execution? The school governors send Hagrid a letter which reads "We have decided to uphold the official complaint of Mr. Lucius Malfoy, and this matter will therefore be taken to the Committee for the Disposal of Dangerous Creatures" (PoA p. 218, US paperback ed.). >> ***I think that was because as a parent, if he has a complaint about the running of the school he is still entitled to take his complaint to the Governors. They will still listen to him and take his views seriously because Draco was hurt (if only a little bit, its still an injury to a pupil and the school is still liable), despite him being sacked. Thinking about it, does Hogwarts have a PTA? Because I think had such a thing happened at my school, the first port of call for a parent would have been the PTA (if they had no joy from the headmaster). My mum knows more about this as she used to be on the PTA when I was still at school and is now a Governor at my old primary school as she still works there... Anyway - << Hagrid then says "Them Disposal devils, they're all in Lucius Malfoy's pocket! Scared o'him!" (PoA, p. 219). And after the Trio learns that the executioner will be coming to the appeal, "Harry had a horrible feeling that the Committee for the Disposal of Dangerous Creatures had had its mind made up for it by Mr. Malfoy" (PoA, p. 316). Is it perhaps that the "Disposal devils" (an apt descriptor!) are Death Eaters like Lucius? We learn in GoF that Macnair, the executioner sent to kill Buckbeak, is a Death Eater. But why wouldn't the opinion of the rest of the Wizarding World matter? >> ***Seems to me that it's more about money. We know, or at least are fairly sure, that the Malfoy's have a lot of cash. I think they are literally, in his pocket. He's bribing them. Though its highly likely that some of them, like Macnair will be Death Eaters too. Perhaps its fear as well? Lucius strikes me as someone that could be very intimidating at times - with or without money. Its mentioned in the UK editions that alot of the people that make those decisions are old and afraid of Malfoy (I think its Ron that says this, but my copy of the book isn't around to check) << In addition, in GoF, Lucius and his family rate a seat in the top box. There's a reference to Lucius' generous donation to St. Mungo's - is this it, then, he's bought his way back into influence? While I know that it's not unheard of for someone to buy their way into influence, it just seems to me that no amount of money could make up for someone who was behind a plan to set a basilisk on a school full of (mostly) innocent students, with the aim of killing off non-pureblood wizards and, IMO, with the aim of finishing off the "good, great" Harry Potter himself. >> ***Hmm as for this, perhaps Fudge and whoever else was responsible for Lucius getting the top box seats didn't know about the diary incident, so have continued to view Lucius as they always did, or you could view it that Fudge is in on it too (Evil). Sara - delurking for a moment again :o) From heidit at netbox.com Mon Aug 19 20:35:51 2002 From: heidit at netbox.com (heidit at netbox.com) Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 20:35:51 -0000 Subject: [[HPforGrownups] Why Does Lucius Still Have Influence After the Diary!Riddle Incident?] Message-ID: <20020819203551.5050.qmail@uwdvg001.cms.usa.net> No: HPFGUIDX 42910 "erisedstraeh2002" wrote: > This implies that only Dumbledore and Harry know the truth about how > Ginny got Riddle's diary. However, this must have been communicated > to others, for on p. 340 we learn that "Lucius Malfoy had been sacked > as a school governor." > > OK, so good, so far. The news was broadcast that Lucius was behind > the diary, and he got what was coming to him (although I think > Azkaban would have been more appropriate, but I digress). But here's > where I get confused - how, after being sacked as a school governor, > and presuming that his "sacking" was due to others learning about his > role in the Diary!Riddle incident, did Lucius still have the > influence needed to order Buckbeak's execution? Actually, I think you're making a bit of a leap back from the sacking to the connection to the diary. It's entirely possible that Dumbledore and a few others know the truth but that Lucius had enough influence, even at that point, to allow himself to be thrown off the board under a pretense - perhaps a false accusation of Hagrid combined with the force pressed against the other governers on that paper to force Dumbledore down as headmaster. In other words, what might've been made public is that Lucius was sacked as a governor because he falsely accused Hagrid and put unacceptable pressure/made threats against other governors to get Dumbledore out of office. And that wouldn't've been enough to keep him from having continued influence at the Ministry in PoA. heidi ____________________________________________________________________ This message was sent from my Palm wireless email account. From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Mon Aug 19 20:50:32 2002 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (bboy_mn) Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 20:50:32 -0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups]the burrow In-Reply-To: <61E2AF8C78F2D211B0B70008C7F921D50616A98E@orion2.greenops.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42911 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Nguyen, Marc" wrote: > <<<<<<<<<<<<<< > Additional Question: on a similar subject- > Is the Weasley's Burrow, in the wizard's parallel universe similar > to Diagon Alley, or is it just muggle space that the Weasley's have > enchanted so the muggles will ignore it? > > bboy_mn > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Marc Responded: > IMHO, it's the latter of the two, although I'm not sure if the > burrow is enchanted or not. In GOF I think, Uncle Vernon receives > the letter full of stamps from the Weasleys. It says to reply via > owl, since the postman doesn't ever come to their house much(due to > lack of mail?). also, when they take the kids to Kings Crossing, > Molly has to get taxis to come get them, so it is accessable to > muggles. > > > Marc bboy_comments: This brings up an interesting point. I always assumed that Mrs. Weasley called (telephoned) the muggle taxis from the town post office. Which is true, but I also assumed that they waited at the post office for the taxis to arrive and loaded everything up there. "Mrs. Weasley had braved the telephone in the village post office to order three ordinary Muggle taxis to take them into London." "'Arthur tried to borrow Ministry cars for us,' Mrs. Weasley whispered to Harry as they stood in the rain-washed yard, watching the taxi drivers heaving six heavy Hogwarts trunks into their cars. ..." I always took 'yard' to me the waiting/parking area in front of the village post office, since most Brits refer to their yard as the garden, but I get the impression that most people took that as the yard in front of the Weasley house. On another note, let's think about who was there- 1)Mrs. Weasley 2)Bill 3)Charlie 4)Fred 5)George 6)Ron 7)Ginny 8)Harry 9)Hermione Nine people, 6 trunks, three owl cages, and one very large somewhat overexcited cat. OK, all that fit in 3 limousine maybe, but 3 common English taxis? That seems like a stretch. And who paid for all this? If cost $12 to take a taxi from my house to the airport (Minneapolis); it's about 8 miles. Ottery St Mary in Devon (the inspiration for Ottery St Catchpole) to Westside London is about 225km/140miles. So what's your guess, US$100 minimum per taxi? Pretty expensive for a family that is scraping for pennies. Maybe the Ministry paid. Mr. Weasley tried to get Ministy cars, maybe since no cars were available, the Ministry offerred to pay for the taxis instead. Although, since Mr. Weasley got all those Top Box World Cup tickets for free (not cheap tickets), it seems like a lot of additional money to add taxi fair on top of that. Just some thoughts. bboy_mn From eloiseherisson at aol.com Mon Aug 19 21:09:37 2002 From: eloiseherisson at aol.com (eloiseherisson at aol.com) Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 17:09:37 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Old topics need new tricks (was:Re:Harry's Holly Wand and... Message-ID: <30.2b99b221.2a92b891@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 42912 In a message dated 19/08/2002 16:27:25 GMT Standard Time, talisman22457 at yahoo.com writes: > Eloise then suggested that "old subjects need new tricks" and > informed that: > People who are interested in this topic and who weren't around back > in May might like to know that we had a huge discussion about it back > then, under the Stoned!Harry heading. ***edited*** > I recommend reading it as a lot of research on this topic has already > been done and posted by members of this group. > I believe Stoned!Harry has also been written up for Hypothetic Ally > *** A walk down Hypothetic Alley will inform you of many of the > theories currently floating around.) > Eloise > > Talisman responds: > In the original post, I noted that I found extant references to Lugh > (e.g. Ronale7, Grandpa Voldemort thread)prior to posting. I was also > aware > that holly symbolism has already been discussed; however, the points > about holly being associated with Lugh; Lugh being patron of > Sorcerers; raised by a sorcerer; and,upon killing his evil grandpa, > becoming the new leader of the Tuatha (mystical pre-Celtic folk) have > not been previously discussed. > In consideration of the interest in Stoned!Harry, here's a little > something for you, Eloise. Lugh killed his evil grandfather with a > *stone.* > A philosopher's stone? ;-) Are you perchance aiming one of those at me? ;-) I was actually replying to Grace's post, which drew on Phyllis' observation, together with a ruthless snip of your post (which snip agreed with Phyllis). I admit to being slightly taken aback by your taking my post as a specific objection to *your* original one, which I cannot at the moment locate (what was the number?), although I have tried. I don't think that I ever suggested that there was nothing new to be posted. There's always something new to say and I do know what it's like to be new in the group. Unfortunately, I decided to cut some of my gripes and in the process cut specifically saying the former. What I was commenting on in my post was the specifically Christian symbolism that was being brought up, which has already been covered at length. I don't doubt for a moment that someone can come up with something new about that, too, but it does become tedious when the *same* ground is gone over yet again. If it's tedious to me, then it must be even more so for those who've been members of the group for even longer. I *do not* want to suggest that new members of the list have nothing to contribute, for one minute. If I have a gripe , it is just that I would just like to ask that, like the old-timers, they try to contribute something which is *in some way* new (and believe me, I know how difficult that is), as is the information you have provided, Talisman. If new threads do start to replicate old ones, old-timers have three options: to ignore them altogether, silently to read all the posts in the hope of something new coming up, or to point newcomers to previous discussions in the hope that they may build on them. What would you do? Eloise (who, although she is conscious of being rather prickly recently, is quite nice really [refs, anyone?] and *does* have sympathy with people who want to chew over the same old topics and *does* realise how tedious (and sometimes nigh well impossible) it is to search the archive, but regrets that sometimes it's necessary.) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From prefectmarcus at yahoo.com Mon Aug 19 21:12:07 2002 From: prefectmarcus at yahoo.com (prefectmarcus) Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 21:12:07 -0000 Subject: Broom Closets (Re: The Magical Room Hiden in Hogwarts) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42913 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "psychic_serpent" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "prefectmarcus" > wrote: > > There are actually three rooms first mentioned in GoF. They are: > > (1) The Prefect's Bathroom > > (2) The Chamberpot room. > > (3) The anteroom off the Great Hall. > > Actually, there is another, although it's debatable whether it > qualifies for "room" status: the broom closet in which Rita Skeeter > conducts an "interview" with Harry prior to the wand-weighing. > In point of fact, I can remember three broom closets. The one you mentioned, the one off the main entrance, and the one that Peeves was plugging the keyhole up with gum. Any others? > > We also get to see the kitchens for the first time, though they > > are mentioned before. > > > > You will also note that JKR did NOT say, "mentioned for the first > > time in book four." > > No, but I don't believe she would have specified that the room was > mentioned in book four if it were also mentioned in any other book. > This would rule out the kitchens and leave the chamberpot room, the > anteroom, the broom closet and the prefect's bathroom. > > The other important thing may be that she used the word "mentioned," > rather than saying that Harry WENT to the room in question in book > four. This is true for the anteroom, the broom closet and the > prefect's bathroom. However, only the chamber pot room was merely > MENTIONED and is never actually seen by Harry or anyone else other > than Dumbledore. This room best fits the description of a > place "mentioned" in book four. But for the life of me, I can't > imagine what magical properties it might have. > --Barb I think we have been Potter-starved too long if we are arguing over what JKR meant when she used the word "mentioned" in an off-the-cuff interview. "Mentioned" can mean anything from "briefly referred to in passing only once and never heard about again," to "described in excruciating detail in all of the four books." I do think it safe to say that she meant it as "touched upon in book 4." Beyond that, I do not think we can make any conclusions. Marcus From prefectmarcus at yahoo.com Mon Aug 19 21:18:29 2002 From: prefectmarcus at yahoo.com (prefectmarcus) Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 21:18:29 -0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups]the burrow In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42914 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "bboy_mn" wrote: > > bboy_comments: > > This brings up an interesting point. I always assumed that Mrs. > Weasley called (telephoned) the muggle taxis from the town post > office. Which is true, but I also assumed that they waited at the post > office for the taxis to arrive and loaded everything up there. > > "Mrs. Weasley had braved the telephone in the village post office to > order three ordinary Muggle taxis to take them into London." > > "'Arthur tried to borrow Ministry cars for us,' Mrs. Weasley whispered > to Harry as they stood in the rain-washed yard, watching the taxi > drivers heaving six heavy Hogwarts trunks into their cars. ..." > > I always took 'yard' to me the waiting/parking area in front of the > village post office, since most Brits refer to their yard as the > garden, but I get the impression that most people took that as the > yard in front of the Weasley house. It could also be their front area/turnaround/etc. > > On another note, let's think about who was there- > > 1)Mrs. Weasley > 2)Bill > 3)Charlie > 4)Fred > 5)George > 6)Ron > 7)Ginny > 8)Harry > 9)Hermione > > Nine people, 6 trunks, three owl cages, and one very large somewhat > overexcited cat. > > OK, all that fit in 3 limousine maybe, but 3 common English taxis? > That seems like a stretch. That works out to only three people, two trunks, and an owl cage per taxi. London cabs, the big black kind, could take all that and to spare. > > And who paid for all this? If cost $12 to take a taxi from my house to > the airport (Minneapolis); it's about 8 miles. Ottery St Mary in Devon > (the inspiration for Ottery St Catchpole) to Westside London is about > 225km/140miles. So what's your guess, US$100 minimum per taxi? > > Pretty expensive for a family that is scraping for pennies. > > Maybe the Ministry paid. Mr. Weasley tried to get Ministy cars, maybe > since no cars were available, the Ministry offerred to pay for the > taxis instead. Although, since Mr. Weasley got all those Top Box World > Cup tickets for free (not cheap tickets), it seems like a lot of > additional money to add taxi fair on top of that. > > Just some thoughts. > > bboy_mn Maybe they got a group discount? Or, as you said, the ministry pitched in. Sirius Black is still on the loose, you know. Marcus From eloiseherisson at aol.com Mon Aug 19 21:18:23 2002 From: eloiseherisson at aol.com (eloiseherisson at aol.com) Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 17:18:23 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Magical Room Hiden in Hogwarts Message-ID: <28.2b5be12a.2a92ba9f@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 42915 > ~Phyllis > who is waiting for one of our British listies to tell me > that "mentioned" means something different in the UK than in the US Of course! Anything to oblige! Well, the word "mentioned" is obviously derived from the Latin, "mens, mentis" - "mind". Thus it means "thought of", not "said", so the room figures only in the mind of a character and is not actually in the text of the book. Eloise (In a particularly wicked frame of mind.) > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From smilingfalcon at yahoo.com Mon Aug 19 19:27:43 2002 From: smilingfalcon at yahoo.com (smilingfalcon) Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 19:27:43 -0000 Subject: FILK: Our Informative Snape Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42916 Our Informative Snape To the tune of "Poor Unfortunate Souls" from Disney's "The Little Mermaid". Setting: A small, underground dungeon. In the middle of the room sits a small wooden table. On one side the table sits Severus Snape. Across from him, (looking thoroughly disgusted), sit Alistair Moody and Barty Crouch, Sr.. Standing behind Snape's chair is Albus Dumbledore. DUMBLEDORE (spoken): The only way we can get what we want is to have Snape spy for us himself. MOODY (spoken, obviously sceptical): Do you trust him? DUMBLEDORE (spoken): My dear Alistair, that's what I do - it's what I live for. To trust unfortunate Death Eaters - like Snape... (Phantom Disney music wafts through the room). DUMBLEDORE (breaking into song): I'll admit that Mr. Snape here is quite nasty His character would make a dragon twitch SNAPE But you'll find that nowadays I've mended all my ways DUMBLEDORE: Repented! To our side he'd like to switch! MOODY: Why? DUMBLEDORE: Ahh... SNAPE: I'll admit that I'm an adept of the Dark Arts It's a talent that I always have possessed. But 'cause torture's just so crass I'll spy on your behalf MOODY (aside to Crouch): I think some woman Caused an urge that was repressed! CROUCH: Pathetic. DUMBLEDORE: Our informative Snape! His news We need! And if we let him live just Long enough to get a girl He'll relax some Wait and see! Oh! Our informative Snape! MOODY (Sarcastic): So sad! CROUCH (Angrily): Hey you! This Death Eater has a cauldron If we trust him wait and see! He will toss us In his brew! SNAPE (Smiling evilly at Crouch): That may have happened once or twice When someone wasn't very nice... DUMBLLEDORE (aside, to Snape): Shut up! Or a Dementor's your next date! SNAPE (somewhat conciliatory): Well, my temper's quite irate, But next to Voldy, I'm a saint. DUMBELDORE: Oh, our informative Snape! MOODY: Those Death-Eaters of Voldemort's don't blabber How else are we to find out what's in store? So I'll agree, though I'd prefer To lunch on dragon tur - CROUCH (interrupting): Why should we trust This, greasy git now, Dumbledore? SNAPE: I'm no longer that impressed by blood and screaming Guess my other motivations, if you can. Trusting me may hurt your head, DUMBLEDORE: Without news, we'll soon be dead! We need clever spy and he's our man! Come on, now, our informative Snape! Sympathise, Imagine, Mr. Snape just may have suffered >From the Cruciatus curse CROUCH: Oh, Ouch! That, Really hurts! DUMBLEDORE: Our informative Snape! CROUCH: All right! He's in! If Snape will spy on Voldemort Then maybe we can win, but One wrong move and it's a cell In darkest Azkaban for him! SNAPE (muttering): Brew a potion just for you.. DUMBLEDORE (aside, sternly to Snape): Now, Severus, we made a deal! (Snape leaves the room to begin work as a spy) DUMBLEDORE, MOODY and CROUCH: If he's not killed we'll see him later on When he's got news to squeal: Our spy, informative Snape! Smilingfalcon Who has obviously been forced to watch too many kid's movies lately.... From feliciarickmann at dsl.pipex.com Mon Aug 19 21:38:15 2002 From: feliciarickmann at dsl.pipex.com (feliciarickmann) Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 21:38:15 -0000 Subject: Confirm Book 5 OoP - No Eng-to--Eng Translation? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42917 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "bboy_mn" wrote: > I came across a reference somewhere (can't find it now) that indicated > book 5 and future books will not be translated from British English to > American English.> > I hope it's true. Can anyone confirm this for me? > > (sorry for the short post) > > bboy_mn I too heard a rumour that they might not bother, and will try and find the link I read it at. I know Bloomsbury did not have anything on their site last time I checked. Perhaps they feel there no longer the need to make the kind of changes mentioned a long time ago in previous posts of a bygone age....... After all canon is now so well established and so widely read that it is possibly (?) not worth the effort. I was always suprised that Scolastic worried people would not know about philosopher's stones in the U.S. anyway. Children and those who read regularly take odd words in their stride and find out about them later. Felicia less than six weeks 'till I fly to the US!! yipee From psychchick04 at yahoo.com Mon Aug 19 21:55:59 2002 From: psychchick04 at yahoo.com (Jacqueline Hendries) Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 14:55:59 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Fudge: Ever-so-Evil or Bumbling Fool? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020819215559.47447.qmail@web9204.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 42918 I apologise if anyone else has brought up this point - I'm still about 50 posts behind - but I looked up the name "Cornelius" the other day, and in Latin, it is used to mean "wise." This struck me as rather odd, considering how Fudge and Dumbledore (who is usually the "wise" one) are so at odds at the end of GoF. Then I had another thought - if "fudge" can be used to mean "to cover up," could his name as a whole mean "wise cover-up"? Does this mean it's a *good* idea for Voldemort's return to be kept under wraps? That's just what occurred to me... guess we'll have to wait until June 3 to find out, though... :P ===== also known as Aloha Moira Read Potters, A History - Chapter 9 is coming soon to a Schnoogle near you! www.schnoogle.com/authorLinks/Aloha_Moira/Potters_A_History __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? HotJobs - Search Thousands of New Jobs http://www.hotjobs.com From speedygonzo242 at hotmail.com Mon Aug 19 22:20:20 2002 From: speedygonzo242 at hotmail.com (frankielee242) Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 22:20:20 -0000 Subject: Cabbage-smelling Brits, US/UK slang, slightly OT In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42919 Eloise wrote:- > I rigorousy deny that when I get old (or even older!) that my house > will inevitably smell of cabbage because of my nationality! > >>>snip<<< > Or is your point that cabbage is particularly English? Do you think > an old Welsh person's house smell of leeks or an old Scottish > person's of neeps? > > What do elderly Americans' houses smell of? Pervasive cabbage and cat smells struck me as JKR's funny caricatures of those particular people. Who on earth would take cats on a camping trip? Mrs. Figg must be a lousy cook-- even her chocolate cake tasted blah to Harry (either PS/SS or Cos, I don't have the books at work). Um, leeks and cabbage I can understand, but what the heck are neeps? As far as the smell of the U.S elderly, it depends on which State and which ethnic neighborhood of which city you're in... My grandmother's house smells like turpentine and oil paints (even when she's cooking Christmas dinner), so I can't hold that up as a generalization. Bboy says:- > > >I think Mrs. Figg is going to be the obvious, an old witch who > lived near Harry to keep an eye on him. Ali wrote: > Bboy you could well be right - but that is the beauty about the > Potter verse at the moment there are still lots of possible > interpretations. Only JKR can prove us right or wrong. And she keeps proving us wrong again and again and again. I love reading everyone's posts! It's so much fun to debate it all! *rocks back and forth murmuring "OoP is due out next year, OoP is due out next year"* =P I have a slightly OT question for the English HPfGU members. There isn't much evidence for or against this in any of the HP books, so here goes-- Do you guys give each other serious nick-names while you're kids in school? Not insulting or funny nick-names, but actual, every-day use names? For instance, odd shortenings of given names like "Char" for Charles, "Fling" for Flemming or "Raz" for Erasmus; plays on physical characteristics like "Cryp" (short for "cripple"-- the injured party came up with it himself, so don't yell at me) or "Arnold" for one of the gargantuan women shot-putters; and personality traits such as "Smutt" for a gentleman of easy virtue? Even teachers over here use these names. They even referred to "Spooge" as... well, "Spooge." A skip in the U.K. is a dumpster in the U.S., so... would you guys actually give anyone, affectionately or otherwise, the nick-name "Skip"? Frankie, who was known as "L" from 1990 to 1992. From coriolan_cmc at hotmail.com Tue Aug 20 00:19:04 2002 From: coriolan_cmc at hotmail.com (coriolan_cmc2001) Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 00:19:04 -0000 Subject: Dudley Gets Diddley (filk) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42920 Dudley Gets Diddley (GoF, Chap. 3) (to the tune of Moses Supposes, from Singin' in the Rain) Dedicated to Darrin THE SCENE: Four Privet Drive. In the kitchen, HARRY and the DURSLEYS gather for breakfast, or rather for the attenuated fare that passes under that name since Dudley perforce began his Spartan diet. HARRY, having ample provender stocked away in his room, views the proceedings with amusement VERNON (spoken, indicating his portion) Is this it? PETUNIA (initially spoken, but gradually sliding into musical cadences) Dudley gets deadly when gets he fed diddley, But Dudley's too flabby, as dad, he can see HARRY (likewise) Dudley, indeed he, do now he his duty, For did he eat diddley a light dude he'd be BOTH Dudley gets deadly when gets he fed diddley, But Dudley's too flabby, as dad, he can see HARRY: For Dudley, our Dude! PETUNIA: Less feeding on food! HARRY: Unfed and unglued! BOTH (music) Hooptie doodie doodle Dudley gets deadly when gets he fed diddley, But Dudley's too flabby, as dad, he can see Dudley, indeed he, do now he his duty, For did he eat diddley a light dude he'd be PETUNIA & (HARRY) Dudley (Dudley gets deadly when gets he fed diddley) Dudley (Dudley's too flabby, as dad, he can see) Dudley (Food he once chewed, gee, should now be echewed, see) BOTH: For the nurse, she thinks worsely if Dursley's porky! HARRY: The food we allude to ain't fast food or snack food PETUNIA: Our duty for Dudley is make him more cuddly BOTH Cannot have his fries in a mega-super size We gotta shrivel Dud or his name is mud! Dudley! Dudley! Dudley! (PETUNIA and HARRY boogie energetically around the kitchen in an extended dance sequence that would do Gene Kelly & Donald O'Connor proud) AAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!! (Vernon and Dudley roll their eyes, sigh, and resume their meal of grapefruit) - CMC HARRY POTTER FILKS http://home.att.net/~coriolan/hpfilks.htm From hpfgu at plum.cream.org Tue Aug 20 00:31:02 2002 From: hpfgu at plum.cream.org (GulPlum) Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 01:31:02 +0100 Subject: Cabbage-smelling Brits, US/UK slang, slightly OT In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4.2.0.58.20020820010640.00a5a100@plum.cream.org> No: HPFGUIDX 42921 At 22:20 19/08/02 +0000, frankielee242 wrote: >Um, leeks and cabbage I can understand, but what the heck are neeps? Turnips. The (stereotypical) main foodstuff of the Scots. Good with Haggis. Apparently. >I have a slightly OT question for the English HPfGU members. There >isn't much evidence for or against this in any of the HP books, so >here goes-- Do you guys give each other serious nick-names while >you're kids in school? Not insulting or funny nick-names, but actual, >every-day use names? Why the distinction between serious, insulting, funny and every-day? Nicknames are given in all sorts of situations for all kinds of reasons, Some of them stick, some of them don't. For instance, I was called "Plum" as a kid (as was most of my family; it's what our surname means) :-) and hated it. Perhaps strangely, several years later I voluntarily took it on as the basis for my online persona and there are lots of people I know in the real world who've taken to using it as well. For some reason, I don't mind any more... A friend of mine (real name Dick Whittington - no, NOT Richard!) has been known since schooldays as Haplo (the origin on the name is lost). Nobody in their right mind calls him Dick! A guy I knew at school (haven't seen him in ages!) was extremely small for his age and was known as "Dot" - the name was still in use the year after his final exams by people outside the school. A final example from this year's UK Big Brother - one of the housemates (real name Spencer Smith) got the nickname "Spanky" at school and apparently he still uses it in his mid-twenties, and half the country now knows him only by that name. :-) >For instance, odd shortenings of given names like "Char" for Charles, >"Fling" for Flemming or "Raz" for Erasmus; plays on physical >characteristics like "Cryp" (short for "cripple"-- the injured party >came up with it himself, so don't yell at me) or "Arnold" for one of >the gargantuan women shot-putters; and personality traits such as >"Smutt" for a gentleman of easy virtue? Even teachers over here use >these names. They even referred to "Spooge" as... well, "Spooge." Sure. though "Chaz" rather than "Char". Giving teachers nicknames is a time-honoured tradition all over the world and the best ones have at least one unchanging one, and a second one given by each generation of pupils. My erstwhile headmaster had the "official" pupil nickname of "Ape" (he had exceptionally long arms and tended to scratch under his armpits a lot!) but during my time had at least 3 other "unofficial" ones which were less inventive but also used. Of course, to the best of my knowledge, he wasn't aware of ay of them, and *especially* not Ape! >A skip in the U.K. is a dumpster in the U.S., so... would you guys >actually give anyone, affectionately or otherwise, the nick-name "Skip"? I don't see why not. Especially for my generation, weaned as we were on "Skippy" (http://histclo.hispeed.com/the/tv/itv/s/to-skippy.html for those who don't get the reference). :-) From Malady579 at hotmail.com Mon Aug 19 22:38:09 2002 From: Malady579 at hotmail.com (malady579) Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 22:38:09 -0000 Subject: The Magical Room Hiden in Hogwarts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42922 > Isaac -If you could travel to Hogwarts for an hour, what would > you do there? > > JK Rowling - Go straight into a certain room, mentioned in book > four which has certain magical properties Harry hasn't > discovered yet! > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "prefectmarcus" > wrote: > > There are actually three rooms first mentioned in GoF. They are: > > (1) The Prefect's Bathroom > > (2) The Chamberpot room. > > (3) The anteroom off the Great Hall. Why would Harry go "searching" for a chamberpot room? JKR enjoys having the three hide in bathrooms as safehouses to learn new things, but it would be interesting to see how she brings that one about. The chamberpot room seems to be a roving room that surprises the wanderer in a time of need. If anything we can assume Dumbledore knew he was "revealing" to Potter that the room exists and to not be surprised if he stubles upon it, like with the mirror of erised. The perfectly proportioned part is interesting. Why would that matter? Anyway, my vote is for the chamberpot magical room as the one JKR wants to visit. > I could imagine far better properties for the broom closet, which > might be a sort of Great Glass Elevator, if JKR is feeling like > borrowing from Roald Dahl. The broom closet might travel up, down > and sideways throughout Hogwarts, taking one anywhere one wants to > go in the castle. I like this idea. Where better for a Willy-Wonka-type elevator than a magical castle in England. Especially since nobody can apparate on Hogwarts grounds. Thats all. :) Melody From daharja at bigpond.net.au Tue Aug 20 01:02:10 2002 From: daharja at bigpond.net.au (Leanne Daharja Veitch) Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 11:02:10 +1000 Subject: Godric's Hollow and Chipping Sodbury References: <1029766771.2002.58113.m12@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <3D619512.3F4E2263@bigpond.net.au> No: HPFGUIDX 42923 Elfun Debby wrote: << Godric's Hollow, which I imagine to be a wizarding village west of Bristol in South Wales >> Hi, I thought I should point out that Chipping Sodbury, where JKR came from, is just a few miles north east of Bristol. Interesting coincidence, hey? BTW, for those who are interested, I was in Chipping Sodbury a few weeks back, and took some photos of the area, including the street where JKR lived (Hatters Lane), and the building where she was born (which is now a dance school). The photos can be found at: http://goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au/~winikoff/photos/trip02/chipping/ Click on the thumbnails to get a full-sized pic. Cheers, Leanne XXX From psychchick04 at yahoo.com Tue Aug 20 01:19:32 2002 From: psychchick04 at yahoo.com (Jacqueline Hendries) Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 18:19:32 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Magical Room Hiden in Hogwarts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020820011932.39506.qmail@web9205.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 42924 > > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "prefectmarcus" > > wrote: > > > There are actually three rooms first mentioned in GoF. They are: > > > (1) The Prefect's Bathroom > > > (2) The Chamberpot room. > > > (3) The anteroom off the Great Hall. Melody replied: Why would Harry go "searching" for a chamberpot room? JKR enjoys having the three hide in bathrooms as safehouses to learn new things, but it would be interesting to see how she brings that one about. The chamberpot room seems to be a roving room that surprises the wanderer in a time of need. If anything we can assume Dumbledore knew he was "revealing" to Potter that the room exists and to not be surprised if he stubles upon it, like with the mirror of erised. The perfectly proportioned part is interesting. Why would that matter? Anyway, my vote is for the chamberpot magical room as the one JKR wants to visit.<< As Sumbledore mentioned, he found this room only while wandering with an extremely full bladder - perhaps the room is not *always* a room filled with chamberpots, but rather a room that only shows itself when one is in great need or desire of something, and is then filled with that? Melody sort of hints at this in her post, though I'm not sure if this is what she meant... I think this would be much more interesting, as a plot device and in general, than another bathroom. :) ~ Jackie ===== also known as Aloha Moira Read Potters, A History - Chapter 9 is coming soon to a Schnoogle near you! www.schnoogle.com/authorLinks/Aloha_Moira/Potters_A_History __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? HotJobs - Search Thousands of New Jobs http://www.hotjobs.com From coriolan_cmc at hotmail.com Tue Aug 20 01:24:58 2002 From: coriolan_cmc at hotmail.com (coriolan_cmc2001) Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 01:24:58 -0000 Subject: Wormytail (filk) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42925 Wormytail (to the tune of the Veggie Tales theme song) Dedicated to Amy Z (who called some months back for more "off-hand" Pettigrew jokes) Hear a MIDI at: http://www.heavenlywebs.net/midis/kidsmidis/veggietales.htm THE SCENE: Undisclosed. Enter HARRY and LORD VOLDEMORT, discussing a mutual acquaintance. VOLDEMORT: If you think no sin could be greater Or could ever be more malign HARRY: Than the loathsome deeds of a traitor Heading straight for Circle Nine BOTH Then let us talk Pettigrew! BOTH Wormytail, Wormytail, Wormytail, Wormytail Hear his tale, hear his tale, hear his tale, hear his tale HARRY Who knew that I'd combat Scabbers rat? Wormytail! VOLDEMORT My demands are so grand, give a hand, Wormytail! HARRY Soft and bald! Vold installed! I'm appalled! Wormytail! VOLDEMORT There's never-ever-ever-ever-ever been a spy like Wormytail! HARRY I should never-ever-ever-ever-ever spare a guy like Wormytail! BOTH The crimes of Wormytail! - CMC HARRY POTTER FILKS http://home.att.net/~coriolan/hpfilks.htm Note: Circle Nine alludes to the lowest level of Dante's Inferno, where practitioners of the ultimate sin, treason, are sent. Literally Hell Frozen Over, with the greatest traitor of them all, Satan, locked in the center. From Malady579 at hotmail.com Tue Aug 20 01:54:17 2002 From: Malady579 at hotmail.com (malady579) Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 01:54:17 -0000 Subject: The Magical Room Hiden in Hogwarts In-Reply-To: <20020820011932.39506.qmail@web9205.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42926 > As Sumbledore mentioned, he found this room only while wandering with > an extremely full bladder - perhaps the room is not *always* a room > filled with chamberpots, but rather a room that only shows itself when > one is in great need or desire of something, and is then filled with > that? Melody sort of hints at this in her post, though I'm not sure if > this is what she meant... I think this would be much more interesting, > as a plot device and in general, than another bathroom. :) > > ~ Jackie > Ooo, I like that. It is a room that arrives and help you when you are in great need. Glad the room was full of chamber pots and not urinals. Somehow chamber pots are more...fitting to Dumbledore's old, romantic character. If that theory is so, then it leaves JKR with many possibilities with plot lines. I wonder if the room is dependable to arrive or just a chance happening? Is there a way to call it? I wonder also if Dumbledore has seen it before? Way to much to think about before bedtime. Melody From Malady579 at hotmail.com Tue Aug 20 02:03:43 2002 From: Malady579 at hotmail.com (malady579) Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 02:03:43 -0000 Subject: Harry and Black in Shrieking Shack Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42927 I have a question from POA and was wondering if anyone else found this ponderable. In the Shrieking Shack before Lupin arrived, Harry, Ron, and Hermione struggled and fought Black off and tackled him to the ground. Harry then stood above Black with his wand raised to "kill" Sirius. Now how was it possible for Harry to kill Black with his wand when Harry did not even learn of the words that brought the killing spell about until Moody's class in GOF? Even then Moody said that the whole class was too young to cause any real damage to anyone. So, how was Harry going to kill Black? Wouldn't Black realize that, well maybe not since he was overpowered by three thriteen-year-olds? How could a skinny little Harry Potter kill large, though still skinny, ans older Black? Thought I'd throw that one out. Not sure if ya'll had discussed it before. Melody From yrawen at ontheqt.org Tue Aug 20 02:31:08 2002 From: yrawen at ontheqt.org (yr awen) Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 22:31:08 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Magical Room Hiden in Hogwarts References: Message-ID: <006701c247f1$a4487e60$badef718@kzo.chartermi.net> No: HPFGUIDX 42928 Melody said: Ooo, I like that. It is a room that arrives and help you when you are in great need. Glad the room was full of chamber pots and not urinals. Somehow chamber pots are more...fitting to Dumbledore's old, romantic character. If that theory is so, then it leaves JKR with many possibilities with plot lines. I wonder if the room is dependable to arrive or just a chance happening? Is there a way to call it? I wonder also if Dumbledore has seen it before? Way to much to think about before bedtime.<<<<<<<<<<<< Indeed, especially if you've had a lot of fluids I think there's evidence in the series to indicate that need-driven magic is powerful stuff. For example, when Harry remembers desperately trying to get away from his tormentors at school (PS/SS), he somehow levitates himself up to the school roof in order to escape. Lily's self-sacrifice spell might fall under that category as well -- when something is so desperately needed that the power of human will can make it so (call it a miracle, maybe.) The Knight Bus is summoned by a simple gesture, but a wizard would obviously have need of it in order to want to summon it. If something like the "Chamber(Pot) of Secrets" room requires need to access it, it probably won't respond to an ordinary incantation. Unless the incantation was, "Please God, please... I really gotta go!!!!!" With some writhing and moaning in agony thrown in :-0 I too like the idea that the room is an 'all-purpose' room that is filled with whatever one needs at that particular moment -- maybe the presence of that room would explain Dumbledore's conjuring all those squashy purple sleeping bags from thin air in PoA. HF. who is suffering from a surfeit of iced tea... oggg... -- www.ontheqt.org eth.pitas.com Habent sua fata libelli. /Books have their own destiny.\ + terentianus maurus + [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From rvotaw at i-55.com Tue Aug 20 02:33:36 2002 From: rvotaw at i-55.com (Richelle Votaw) Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 21:33:36 -0500 Subject: Various comments/ponderings/questions on Voldemort and his wand (really long!) Message-ID: <010b01c247f1$fd369b60$c49dcdd1@istu757> No: HPFGUIDX 42929 I've been doing a good deal of thinking about Voldemort and his wand. Most of this has probably been discussed, but I'm bringing it together here. I've got a good many questions/thoughts, but they're all sort of related. I'll try to keep it logically sequenced and not get ahead of myself (ha!). Be prepared, it's rather lengthy. Oh, by the way, nothing to do with Latin here. :) 1) First, let's go back to the night Lily and James were killed. Who took Voldemort's wand from the scene? Voldemort has said himself that he was torn from his body and could not hold a wand in order to perform any spell to help himself, so it can't be him. As I see it there are two possibilites. a) Someone was with him and took the wand as he fled after Voldemort was vaporized (for lack of a better word). b) Someone went to the house (probably before Hagrid arrived as he said he got Harry out just before the Muggles starting swarming the place) and found the wand and took it then. Logically speaking I'd say for now the first is more likely, due to a couple of things. One being that finding a wand in all that mess would've been like finding a needle in a haystack. Unless you can "accio wand" or something. Second, if someone on Voldemort's side had come wouldn't they have done something about Harry? Either kill him or steal him, surely. 2) So if someone *did* take the wand, who? I'll operate on the premis that it was taken by someone already present. The most logical person to be there would be Wormtail, as he was the secret keeper. But whether he grabbed it and ran or whatever, if it were him he must've hidden it someplace immediately. Or else he'd have still had it when he was cornered by Sirius and turned himself into a rat and went into hiding for the next 12 years. Other possibilities? Help? Snape perhaps, if he were there? But if it were him he'd almost have to be double crossing Dumbledore. Lucius? He has all sorts of dark art things he hides anyway, though I don't see how he could've gotten it back to Voldemort. 3) Who killed Cedric Diggory? I get the impression, though Harry's not looking for us to know (blinding pain from his scar, wand slips from his hand, knees buckle and he hits the ground), that it was Voldemort with the "high cold voice" saying "Kill the spare." And Wormtail was the second voice screeching "Avada Kedavra." But why? Voldemort says he killed Bertha Jorkins (he's got his ugly baby body [whatever] by now) and we know he killed Frank Bryce. Why not Cedric Diggory? He could hold the wand by now, I just found it odd. Not sure what that means, if anything. 4) Jumping ahead a few years, to GoF graveyard scene--prior incantatum. Does light always come from a wand when performing a spell? It's not usually mentioned. Except there's always a green light with AK. And in the dueling club when Snape shouts Expelliarmus there's a *flash* of scarlet light. Back to the graveyard scene, Harry shouts "Expelliarmus" as Voldemort shouts "Avada Kedavra" and a red light comes from Harry's wand, it meets the green light from Voldemort's and becomes *gold.* Get it? Red/gold=Gryffindor? Is there a meaning there? Is that why the priori incantatum starts on Voldemort's wand and not Harrys? If it had met and become *silver* what would have happened? Would spells have come out of Harry's wand? How does the priori incantatum choose which wand to work with? Does it look at the spells just cast? Expelliarmus being a defensive spell and AK being aggressive? Or was Harry's leg locker and jelly legs stuff a bit boring? 5) More Priori Incantatum. Okay, we start with the very last spell performed. Why don't the Cruciatus curses Voldemort kept doing to Harry come out as anything? First thing we get is the hand for Wormtail. I would assume only dead people come out, but there's that hand, which throws that off. Then you've got Frank Bryce, Bertha Jorkins, then straight to Lily and James. Why isn't there anything for the failed AK? It blasts back at Voldemort, so I'd almost expect something from Voldemort to come out. But there's nothing at all. No lightning bolt, no bright light, no Voldemort/ Riddle--nothing. This could mean one of two things. a) No one was actually killed so nothing came, but this doesn't make sense since the Wormtail's silver hand came out. b) Voldemort used a different wand. 6) Let me expound for a moment on the "different wand" theory. Someone (no idea who, sorry) mentioned a while back something to the effect of a wand being "overheated" such that it couldn't perform too many AK's back to back. All right, so Voldemort grabs another wand. Who is there with a wand? Let's take a couple of guesses. a) Wormtail, if he's around. Voldemort could've changed wands with him which would've gotten Voldemort's wand from the scene anyway. Then Voldemort could've tried to AK Harry with Wormtail's wand. b) Any other misc. death eater who may have been hanging out there. c) Lily or James' wand. How horrible could it be to kill someone's baby with their own wand? If it were Lily's, could this be part of the ancient magic? Something done to her wand? Here's where it gets fuzzy, stay with me here. *If* (big if here) the scene in the film is accurate, it took Lily a few seconds to die. Not long, right? But for an AK, an eternity. IF this is remotely accurate (big if, I know, but possible) she was somehow fighting the AK. For what? It added to her pain. That would mean she didn't just die, but suffered doing it. Perhaps *this* could "overheat" a wand. So Voldemort can't use his wand to AK Harry, unless he stands around waiting for it to "cool down" which wouldn't be smart. So instead he grabs Lily's wand, which is lying around somewhere and tries to AK Harry. But it backfires and he is pratically AK'd himself. Torn from his body at least. Since we do know that a wand can backfire (Ron's spellotaped wand) it's a remote possibility. I'm picturing an AK coming from *Lily's* wand to *Lily's* baby and saying "Nope, not gonna do it," and bouncing back. Yep, far fetched. However, that still doesn't take care of the "how Voldemort's wand got out of the Potter house" question, so Wormtail's is probably a better bet. If another wand was used. Well, I think I've covered it all. I do, however, have nothing better to do at the moment then come up with far fetched ideas. Which I've done a fine job of, I do believe. :) Richelle ------------------------------------ Richelle R. Votaw 1st grade teacher Kentwood Elementary ------------------------------------ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From yrawen at ontheqt.org Tue Aug 20 02:46:23 2002 From: yrawen at ontheqt.org (yr awen) Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 22:46:23 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Harry and Black in Shrieking Shack References: Message-ID: <007101c247f3$c5d52360$badef718@kzo.chartermi.net> No: HPFGUIDX 42930 Melody was wondering: In the Shrieking Shack before Lupin arrived, Harry, Ron, and Hermione struggled and fought Black off and tackled him to the ground. Harry then stood above Black with his wand raised to "kill" Sirius. Now how was it possible for Harry to kill Black with his wand when Harry did not even learn of the words that brought the killing spell about until Moody's class in GOF?<<<<<<<<<<<< Presumably there are other ways to kill a person other than the Avada Kedavra curse, which Harry obviously doesn't even know at this point. It appears from the text (American paperback, which I am beginning to look upon with suspicion, PoA17)that Harry may attempt to put some kind of freezing spell on Sirius' heart or otherwise stop his blood from circulating -- at least, Sirius' heart is mentioned twice: "Black was sprawled at the bottom of the wall. His thin chest rose and fell rapidly as he watched Harry walking slowly nearer, his wand pointing straight at Black's heart. "'Going to kill me, Harry?' he whispered. "Harry stopped right above him, his wand still pointing at Black's chest, looking down at him.... "Before either of them could say another word, something ginger streaked past Harry; Crookshanks leapt onto Black's chest and settled himself there, right over Black's heart. Black blinked and looked down at the cat." Throughout this confrontation, Harry's wand doesn't waver from its aim at Sirius' chest, and even though Crookshanks is physically on top of Sirius' heart, Harry figures that he'll kill the cat if he has to. Or maybe he wants to make Sirius' chest explode (or similiar.) Maybe set him on fire. In short, killing someone doesn't require the use of an Unforgivable; a simple charm would probably be just as effective, and something Harry could work with a minimum of difficulty. Before that, though, Harry's in a blind rage: "He had forgotten about magic -- he had forgotten that he was short and skinny and thirteen, whereas Black was a tall, full-grown man -- all Harry knew was that he wanted to hurt Black as badly as he could..." Of course, once he has Sirius on the ropes, the text never actually states what Harry's planning to do outright, so he might not even know what he's going to do to finish off Sirius, who seems to pick up on it ("Going to kill me, Harry?")I'm not entirely sure how to read that particular passage; it sounds that Harry's nowhere near as resolved as he thinks he is. HF. -- www.ontheqt.org eth.pitas.com Habent sua fata libelli. /Books have their own destiny.\ + terentianus maurus + [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From divaclv at aol.com Tue Aug 20 03:26:12 2002 From: divaclv at aol.com (c_voth312) Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 03:26:12 -0000 Subject: Harry and Black in Shrieking Shack In-Reply-To: <007101c247f3$c5d52360$badef718@kzo.chartermi.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42931 > > Before that, though, Harry's in a blind rage: "He had forgotten about magic -- he had forgotten that he was short and skinny and thirteen, whereas Black was a tall, full-grown man -- all Harry knew was that he wanted to hurt Black as badly as he could..." Of course, once he has Sirius on the ropes, the text never actually states what Harry's planning to do outright, so he might not even know what he's going to do to finish off Sirius, who seems to pick up on it ("Going to kill me, Harry?")I'm not entirely sure how to read that particular passage; it sounds that Harry's nowhere near as resolved as he thinks he is. > There's also the "adrenaline magic" issue: in states of high emotional intensity (particularly fear and rage), wizards can produce a spell spontaneously just by "wishing" it to happen. Harry's probably mad enough at this point that if he really focused on it, he could do something very fatal to without having to know any incantations or such--but deep down, he can't bring himself to do it. ~Christi From lilac_bearry at yahoo.com Tue Aug 20 05:19:39 2002 From: lilac_bearry at yahoo.com (Lilac) Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 22:19:39 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [FILK] HOGSMEADE! Message-ID: <20020820051939.22210.qmail@web40301.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 42932 HOGSMEADE! to the tune of "Downtown" by Petula Clarke (This is a brochure provided by the Hogsmeade Chamber of Commerce...enchanted, of course, with this song and a moving picture that changes scenes to show what the song is describing. Much like a Muggle t.v. commercial.) When all the muggles start to make you feel down, then you can always come....to Hogsmeade! By broomstick or fireplace or train or a portkey, you can always come....to Hogsmeade! We're proud we can proclaim that we're an only-wizard city! Won't see any muggles, even in our "inner city". Relax while in town! Wear all your wizard-wear here. Imagine donning your robes without getting looks queer when in Hogsmeade! Won't have to muggle dress... Hogsmeade! On the way to Loch Ness**... Hogsmeade, a wonderful village for you! If you like shopping, then you will enjoy the great stores on High Street....in Hogsmeade! There's Dervish and Banges for all your wizarding gear, and Gladrags can't be beat....in Hogsmeade! There's Zonko's Jokes and Honeyduke's to lighten purse and moods there. The Three Broomsticks for mulled mead, and a Post Office with owls there, ready for you. If you want much stronger drink, head to the Hog's Head Inn Pub! Don't miss the Shack with the Shrieks when in Hogsmeade! Please see us soon here in... Hogsmeade! Gorgeous in June when in... Hogsmeade! It's all here waiting for you! La la la la la, la la la la la la la la la la la.... Hogsmeade! La la la la la, la la la la la la la la la la la.... Hogsmeade! On weekends, Hogwart's students come in droves to our fair city. They visit the Three Broomsticks and on Butterbeer get giddy ...but it's not strong booze! They can forget for a while that they should be hard at study for their N.E.W.T.'s and their O.W.L..'s when in Hogsmeade! Where fairy lights are bright... Hogsmeade! Beat the curfew tonight... Hogsmeade! Students will be alright here! --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** The Lexicon says that Hogsmeade is in Scotland, UK, which is, of course, home to that famous lake. I have no idea how close it is to Hogsmeade, but I would imagine that when in Scotland, witches and wizards alike would love to go see the world's largest Kelpie (FBAWTFT), whom the Muggles have named "Nessie". (A big THANKS to the Lexicon for having all this info in one place to make researching for this song so easy!) ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~ "Tut, tut --- hardly any of you remembered that my favorite color is *lilac*. I say so in Year with the Yeti." --Gilderoy Lockhart, COS --------------------------------- Do You Yahoo!? HotJobs, a Yahoo! service - Search Thousands of New Jobs [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Tue Aug 20 08:44:07 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 08:44:07 -0000 Subject: Various comments/ponderings/questions on Voldemort and his wand (really long!) In-Reply-To: <010b01c247f1$fd369b60$c49dcdd1@istu757> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42933 Richelle Votaw asked a few questions, which I'm tackling secuentialy: >>>> 1) First, let's go back to the night Lily and James were killed. Who took Voldemort's wand from the scene? Voldemort has said himself that he was torn from his body and could not hold a wand in order to perform any spell to help himself, so it can't be him. As I see it there are two possibilites. a) Someone was with him and took the wand as he fled after Voldemort was vaporized (for lack of a better word). b) Someone went to the house (probably before Hagrid arrived as he said he got Harry out just before the Muggles starting swarming the place) and found the wand and took it then. Logically speaking I'd say for now the first is more likely, due to a couple of things. One being that finding a wand in all that mess would've been like finding a needle in a haystack. Unless you can "accio wand" or something. Second, if someone on Voldemort's side had come wouldn't they have done something about Harry? Either kill him or steal him, surely.>>>>> There is a third possibility you haven't considered: that Hagrid took the wand, and then told no-one for years and years because he wanted to have a working wand (which he camouflaged in the pink umbrella). Peter was hiding as a rat someplace nearby and saw him take it. Years later (in PoA, when he spends some time in Hagrid's shack, he discovers where it is, and when he flees from the shack scene, he goes for it. I don't really believe this theory, but it's workable. Also, it's not as difficult to find a wand in between all that rubble: the wand should be lying more or less at the center of the explosion, since it was centered either at Voldemort or at Harry (my money's at Voldemort). Unless it was knowcked off by the explosion, it should be at "ground 0", which I assume it's quite free from debris (everything exploded *away* from that point). >>>> 2) So if someone *did* take the wand, who? I'll operate on the premis that it was taken by someone already present. The most logical person to be there would be Wormtail, as he was the secret keeper. But whether he grabbed it and ran or whatever, if it were him he must've hidden it someplace immediately. Or else he'd have still had it when he was cornered by Sirius and turned himself into a rat and went into hiding for the next 12 years. Other possibilities? Help? Snape perhaps, if he were there? But if it were him he'd almost have to be double crossing Dumbledore. Lucius? He has all sorts of dark art things he hides anyway, though I don't see how he could've gotten it back to Voldemort.>>>> My own version is that Peter grabed the wand just after the explosion, when Voldemort had turned into a pile of ash. At that point, Peter realized that he was going to have to hide, and possibly thought of faking his own death. The best proof in that sort of cases is leaving behind something no wizard would ever voluntarily leave behind: his wand. But Peter could do it because he had a spare wand: Voldemort's. Thus, he could drop his wand and transform into a rat, safe in the assumption that he still had *another* wand if he ever ran into trouble. >>>> 3) Who killed Cedric Diggory? I get the impression, though Harry's not looking for us to know (blinding pain from his scar, wand slips from his hand, knees buckle and he hits the ground), that it was Voldemort with the "high cold voice" saying "Kill the spare." And Wormtail was the second voice screeching "Avada Kedavra." But why? Voldemort says he killed Bertha Jorkins (he's got his ugly baby body [whatever] by now) and we know he killed Frank Bryce. Why not Cedric Diggory? He could hold the wand by now, I just found it odd. Not sure what that means, if anything.>>>> Cedric was killed by Peter, possibly because at that point it was Peter the one holding the wand. Voldemort oredered him to do it because if he had asked for the wand, then fumeled with it until it pointed in the right direction, etc, it would give Cedric time to throw himselves into cover (in other words: it's mroe eficient to ahve Peter kill him). It's also possible that the potion requires particuar strength (which he does not want to deplete by doing magics that Peter can do) or that, like in some medical procedures, you have to be "clean" no magic during the previous 24 hours, for example. I myself believe is more a matter of eficiency. >>>> 4) Jumping ahead a few years, to GoF graveyard scene--prior incantatum. Does light always come from a wand when performing a spell? It's not usually mentioned. Except there's always a green light with AK. And in the dueling club when Snape shouts Expelliarmus there's a *flash* of scarlet light. Back to the graveyard scene, Harry shouts "Expelliarmus" as Voldemort shouts "Avada Kedavra" and a red light comes from Harry's wand, it meets the green light from Voldemort's and becomes *gold.* Get it? Red/gold=Gryffindor? Is there a meaning there? Is that why the priori incantatum starts on Voldemort's wand and not Harrys? If it had met and become *silver* what would have happened? Would spells have come out of Harry's wand? How does the priori incantatum choose which wand to work with? Does it look at the spells just cast? Expelliarmus being a defensive spell and AK being aggressive? Or was Harry's leg locker and jelly legs stuff a bit boring? >>>> There is always some kind of magical energy coming out of the wand, if nothing else. That magic is the one that has to be directed towards the objective. Sometimes, however, is more than energy: Draco manages to produce a snake in CoS and Snape ropes in PoA. In this case, Expelliarmus produces a red light. Since it travesl at the seed of light, though, it looks like a flash (I've got reasons to believe that AK's light travels more slowly than that, but that's better reserved to another thread). However, when both lights meet, due to the priori incantatem effect, neither spell takes due curse, but join in the middle and form a permanent energy bridge between the two wands, and a magical net envolving both of them (once there is enough free space for the net to exist). Now, the rest of your questions are reduced to what happened during the priori incantatem effect. If you read the descrition, you see that everything happened in Voldemort's and because Harry won a mind duel between them, and pushed the globules into Voldemort's wand. The sort of spells used and the colour of the priori incantatem have nothing to do with it. Harry wins the will match, and that means that Voldemort's wand gets to be done the prior incantatem. >>> 5) More Priori Incantatum. Okay, we start with the very last spell performed. Why don't the Cruciatus curses Voldemort kept doing to Harry come out as anything? First thing we get is the hand for Wormtail. I would assume only dead people come out, but there's that hand, which throws that off. Then you've got Frank Bryce, Bertha Jorkins, then straight to Lily and James. Why isn't there anything for the failed AK? It blasts back at Voldemort, so I'd almost expect something from Voldemort to come out. But there's nothing at all. No lightning bolt, no bright light, no Voldemort/ Riddle--nothing. This could mean one of two things. a) No one was actually killed so nothing came, but this doesn't make sense since the Wormtail's silver hand came out. b) Voldemort used a different wand.>>>>>> There is no reason to believe that *all* curses have a visible priori incantatem effect. Maybe cruciatus comes out as a scream, or maybe there just isn't anything that's left in the wand to indicate that a cruciatus has been used. Notice that the things we *have* seen come from a wand are always visible: the death mark, the hand. The AKs, too, have a particular effect: they show us a refection of the person's soul (some people think it's *the* person's soul) that was killed by the AK. This, of course, rules ut the failed AK from appearing, since it destroyed no soul: not Harry's, who's still alive and well, nor Voldemort's who's "soul" (or what was left of it after years of dark magic) was forced to separate from his body and flee to Albania. > Well, I think I've covered it all. I do, however, have nothing > better to do at the moment then come up with far fetched ideas. > Which I've done a fine job of, I do believe. :) > > Richelle Hope that helps, Grey Wolf From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Tue Aug 20 09:09:40 2002 From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com) Date: 20 Aug 2002 09:09:40 -0000 Subject: File - hbfile.html Message-ID: <1029834580.179679587.58097.m12@yahoogroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 42934 An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eloiseherisson at aol.com Tue Aug 20 09:52:18 2002 From: eloiseherisson at aol.com (eloiseherisson at aol.com) Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 05:52:18 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Various comments/ponderings/questions on Voldemort and hi... Message-ID: <166.127a520d.2a936b52@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 42935 Richelle asks lots of pertinent questions about Voldemort's wand. It's a lot harder to answer them in this orderly fashion, I think as answers overlap. Oh, I see Grey Wolf's got there first with his reply. Apologies for any overlaps. I'm not editing again,or someone else will post everything else I've said! > 1) First, let's go back to the night Lily and James were killed. Who took > Voldemort's wand from the scene? Voldemort has said himself that he was > torn from his body and could not hold a wand in order to perform any spell > to help himself, so it can't be him. As I see it there are two > possibilites. a) Someone was with him and took the wand as he fled after > Voldemort was vaporized (for lack of a better word). b) Someone went to > the house (probably before Hagrid arrived as he said he got Harry out just > before the Muggles starting swarming the place) and found the wand and took > it then. Logically speaking I'd say for now the first is more likely, due > to a couple of things. One being that finding a wand in all that mess > would've been like finding a needle in a haystack. Unless you can "accio > wand" or something. Second, if someone on Voldemort's side had come > wouldn't they have done something about Harry? Either kill him or steal > him, surely. Eloise: That thorny question! Yes, how did Voldemort get his wand back? I don't see why you shouldn't 'accio wand'. As you say, either someone with Voldemort took it with him/her, or it was discovered in the ruins. I have already suggested that it must have been imperative for the MOM to remove all the magical objects from the site somehow or other before the Muggles got there. Why didn't s/he do something about Harry? Well, if s/he knew what had just happened to Voldemort, s/he might have thought Harry a little too hot to handle, so to speak. If it were Pettigrew, I think he'd just run. He wouldn't bother about Harry. If it were someone from the MOM, then we're into conspiracy theories. Richelle: > > 2) So if someone *did* take the wand, who? I'll operate on the premis that > it was taken by someone already present. The most logical person to be > there would be Wormtail, as he was the secret keeper. But whether he > grabbed it and ran or whatever, if it were him he must've hidden it > someplace immediately. Or else he'd have still had it when he was cornered > by Sirius and turned himself into a rat and went into hiding for the next > 12 years. Eloise: He could have had it with him then; we don't know that he didn't. Clothes and wands, etc. transform along with the animagus, so he could have regained human shape to hide it later. (Someone suggested a little while ago that one of the reasons he chose to hide in Hagrid's hut was that that was the place he had hidden Voldemort's wand.) Richelle: Other possibilities? Help? Snape perhaps, if he were there? But if it were him > he'd almost have to be double crossing Dumbledore. Lucius? He has all > sorts of dark art things he hides anyway, though I don't see how he > could've gotten it back to Voldemort. Eloise: If it were Snape, he would '*definitely* be double-crossing Dumbledore, IMO. I have no problems suspecting Lucius. Perhaps he was with Voldemort on the night of the attack (as I suggested on the evidence of Harry's dream). OTOH, as you say, getting it back to Voldemort would be a problem, Particularly in the light of their conversation in the graveyard. Surely Lucius would have mentioned it, if he had been the one to restore Voldemort's wand. Richelle: > 3) Who killed Cedric Diggory? I get the impression, though Harry's not > looking for us to know (blinding pain from his scar, wand slips from his > hand, knees buckle and he hits the ground), that it was Voldemort with the > "high cold voice" saying "Kill the spare." And Wormtail was the second > voice screeching "Avada Kedavra." Eloise: Agreed. Richelle: But why? Voldemort says he killed Bertha Jorkins (he's got his ugly baby body > [whatever] by now) and we know he killed Frank Bryce. Why not Cedric > Diggory? He could hold the wand by now, I just found it odd. Not sure > what that means, if anything. Eloise: I think that, 1) by now, he's only concerned with Harry and 2) because he now has his body and is not *dependent* on Wormtail's help, he can enjoy commanding him from a position of strength, rather than weakness. >From a literary point of view, it makes the killing of Cedric even more chilling, as it shows Voldemort's utter disdain for his life. Richelle: > 4) Jumping ahead a few years, to GoF graveyard scene--prior incantatum. > Does light always come from a wand when performing a spell? Eloise: No, I don't think so. Sometimes it's sauce! (cf Molly's cooking). Richelle: It's not usually mentioned. Except there's always a green light with AK. And in > the dueling club when Snape shouts Expelliarmus there's a *flash* of scarlet > light. Back to the graveyard scene, Harry shouts "Expelliarmus" as > Voldemort shouts "Avada Kedavra" and a red light comes from Harry's wand, > it meets the green light from Voldemort's and becomes *gold.* Get it? > Red/gold=Gryffindor? Is there a meaning there? Eloise: Quite possibly, although I'm not the person to discuss colour symbolism (are you there, Caroline?). Two other possibilities: Phoenixes are red and gold, so possibly it has something to do with the wands' common cores. More prosaically, if you mix red light and green light, you get yellow light and there's not a lot of difference, I would venture, between yellow and gold when we talk about a light beam. Richelle: > Is that why the priori incantatum starts on Voldemort's wand and not Harrys? > Eloise: No, I don't think so. I think it starts because Harry has *forced* the bead of light onto Voldemort's wand tip by his sheer force of mind and magical power. The wands were forced to duel and Harry's won. Richelle: >If it had met and become *silver* what would have happened? Eloise: Dunno! I don't know that it would have turned silver. Richelle: Would spells have > come out of Harry's wand? How does the priori incantatum choose which wand > to work with? > Eloise: By which wand has the upper hand in the duel. If Voldemort's had won, then, yes, as I understand it, Harry's wand would have been forced to regurgitate its spells. Richelle: Does it look at the spells just cast? Expelliarmus being a defensive spell and AK > being aggressive? Or was Harry's leg locker and jelly legs stuff a bit > boring? Eloise: As I understand it, it just works its way back through the spells cast in reverse order, but how some of these would manifest themselves is a moot point. Richelle: > > 5) More Priori Incantatum. Okay, we start with the very last spell > performed. Why don't the Cruciatus curses Voldemort kept doing to Harry > come out as anything? First thing we get is the hand for Wormtail. I > would assume only dead people come out, but there's that hand, which throws > that off. Then you've got Frank Bryce, Bertha Jorkins, then straight to > Lily and James. Why isn't there anything for the failed AK? It blasts > back at Voldemort, so I'd almost expect something from Voldemort to come > out. But there's nothing at all. No lightning bolt, no bright light, no > Voldemort/ Riddle--nothing. This could mean one of two things. a) No one > was actually killed so nothing came, but this doesn't make sense since the > Wormtail's silver hand came out. b) Voldemort used a different wand. Eloise: Now this is a very intriguing question and something that I have wondered about. How *would * a Cruciatus manifest itself? Although, you know, the wand does emit screams of pain, before the shadow of the hand appears. Perhaps that was the memory of the Cruciatus curses. OTOH, as my own copy attests, JKR did get things wrong about this scene. The lack of any memory of the curse that failed is odd, I agree. Richelle: > > 6) Let me expound for a moment on the "different wand" theory. Someone (no > idea who, sorry) mentioned a while back something to the effect of a wand > being "overheated" such that it couldn't perform too many AK's back to > back. All right, so Voldemort grabs another wand. Who is there with a > wand? Let's take a couple of guesses. a) Wormtail, if he's around. > Voldemort could've changed wands with him which would've gotten Voldemort's > wand from the scene anyway. Then Voldemort could've tried to AK Harry with > Wormtail's wand. Eloise: This is true. We only have Ollivander's word for it that it was the twin wand that gave Harry his scar and how would he know? (Now *there* would be a good place to hide a wand, with a conniving wand-maker.) Richelle: > b) Any other misc. death eater who may have been hanging out there. c) Lily > or James' wand. How horrible could it be to kill someone's baby with their > own wand? If it were Lily's, could this be part of the ancient magic? > Something done to her wand? > > Eloise: That's definitely Bangy! Richelle: Here's where it gets fuzzy, stay with me here. *If* (big if here) the scene in the film > is accurate, it took Lily a few seconds to die. Not long, right? But for > an AK, an eternity. Eloise: As you say, this is a big *IF*. All the canon information we have is that AK is instant and unblockable. Richelle: IF this is remotely accurate (big if, I know, but possible) she was somehow fighting > the AK. For what? It added to her pain. That would mean she didn't just > die, but suffered doing it. Perhaps *this* could "overheat" a wand. So > Voldemort can't use his wand to AK Harry, unless he stands around waiting > for it to "cool down" which wouldn't be smart. So instead he grabs Lily's > wand, which is lying around somewhere and tries to AK Harry. But it > backfires and he is pratically AK'd himself. Torn from his body at least. > Since we do know that a wand can backfire (Ron's spellotaped wand) it's a > remote possibility. I'm picturing an AK coming from *Lily's* wand to > *Lily's* baby and saying "Nope, not gonna do it," and bouncing back. Yep, > far fetched. Eloise: Not exactly far-fetched; it has its own internal logic and a deal of pathos, but it does rest on the two unproven premises that you *can* fight the AK and that wands *do* overheat if you get AK-happy (if that's what you're saying. I'm afraid I missed that theory first time round). I'm afraid these would probably invoke a yellow flag. ;-) In fact, we have canon evidence that you *can* perform several AKs on the trot and that Voldemort's wand did so, right there on the first page of GOF. Tom Riddle AK'd both his grandparents and his father, didn't he? To be truthful, I think that the curse that failed just got missed out of the scene. Eloise [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From eloiseherisson at aol.com Tue Aug 20 10:51:22 2002 From: eloiseherisson at aol.com (eloiseherisson at aol.com) Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 06:51:22 EDT Subject: The Burrow/ Cornelius (was:Fudge: Ever-so-Evil or Bumbling Fool?) Message-ID: <16e.1266703b.2a93792a@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 42936 > bboy_comments: > > This brings up an interesting point. I always assumed that Mrs. > Weasley called (telephoned) the muggle taxis from the town post > office. Which is true, but I also assumed that they waited at the post > office for the taxis to arrive and loaded everything up there. > > "Mrs. Weasley had braved the telephone in the village post office to > order three ordinary Muggle taxis to take them into London." > > "'Arthur tried to borrow Ministry cars for us,' Mrs. Weasley whispered > to Harry as they stood in the rain-washed yard, watching the taxi > drivers heaving six heavy Hogwarts trunks into their cars. ..." I always took 'yard' to me the waiting/parking area in front of the village post office, since most Brits refer to their yard as the garden, but I get the impression that most people took that as the yard in front of the Weasley house. This isn't the only mention of the Weasleys having a 'yard'. GOF, The Portkey (p65, UK HB) has those going off the the QWC setting off 'across the dark yard'. When they return she has been waiting for them 'in the front yard' (p131, Mayhem at the Ministry) It seems that the front of their house has what, in a farmhouse, would be called a farmyard. (Theirs is a rural house, with chickens, IIRC.) Not a garden. They do have a garden, too, the grassy area that the gnomes invade. In Britain the word garden indicates something that has some sort of decorative or leisure use, be it only a square of grass. A yard is a functional, or non-decorative, area attached to a property, usually having a hard surface. (Although decorative, paved areas are still gardens.) In heavily built-up areas, particularly industrial areas with rows of small terraced properties, houses did have back yards, rather than gardens. I believe my mother was brought up in a property like that. Of course, both words ultimately have the same etymology. > > On another note, let's think about who was there- > > 1)Mrs. Weasley > 2)Bill > 3)Charlie > 4)Fred > 5)George > 6)Ron > 7)Ginny > 8)Harry > 9)Hermione > > Nine people, 6 trunks, three owl cages, and one very large somewhat > overexcited cat. > > OK, all that fit in 3 limousine maybe, but 3 common English taxis? > That seems like a stretch. Marcus has dealt with that one in his black taxi explanation, with which I concur. > > And who paid for all this? If cost $12 to take a taxi from my house to > the airport (Minneapolis); it's about 8 miles. Ottery St Mary in Devon > (the inspiration for Ottery St Catchpole) to Westside London is about > 225km/140miles. So what's your guess, US$100 minimum per taxi? > > Pretty expensive for a family that is scraping for pennies. > > > I have also used the Ottery St Mary analogy to suggest that Ottery St Catchpole is somewhere in south Devon, but to be fair, we don't actually *know* that it is. It's obviously the inspiration for the name, but we don't know the location. I think that you're conservative in your estimation of the cost! There's another big problem with this scenario, which I posted once before: time. They weren't planning on taking taxis; Molly only rang after Arthur and Diggory had the conversation in the fireplace. It takes me three hours to drive the 160 miles from here (Kent, south of London) over to Bristol by motorway. It's more like 200 miles from Ottery St Mary, by the quickest route (according to the AA mileage table I just consulted. Your probably estimating distance as the crow flies?) And they have to get across London itself (Kings Cross is in north London, not the west) which takes a lot of time. I have difficulty believing thy could have got there by 11am. ................................... Psychchick: > > I apologise if anyone else has brought up this point - I'm still about > 50 posts behind - but I looked up the name "Cornelius" the other day, > and in Latin, it is used to mean "wise." This struck me as rather odd, > considering how Fudge and Dumbledore (who is usually the "wise" one) > are so at odds at the end of GoF. > > Then I had another thought - if "fudge" can be used to mean "to cover > up," could his name as a whole mean "wise cover-up"? Does this mean > it's a *good* idea for Voldemort's return to be kept under wraps? > That's just what occurred to me... guess we'll have to wait until June > 3 to find out, though... :P > Oh dear, here I go again...........;-) All my sources say that this famous Roman family name is probably related to the Latin "cornus", meaning horn. (Cornelius would thus literally mean "horny". What the implications of that were to a Roman, I don't know!) The only words I know for "wise" are sapiens, or prudens. Back in March (msg 37118) Bugeater posted a message about a Pope Cornelius, who was succeeded by a Pope Lucius (there's a lot of detail which I won't go into) and wondered if this was a parallel, hinting at Lucius becoming the next Minister for Magic. However, my Latin dictionary mentioned Cornelius as a name particularly associated with the Sulla family. Lucius Cornelius Sulla was a politician (later dictator) of the late Republic, whose bitter feud with Marius twice plunged Rome into civil war. Don't ask me what the implications, if any, of that are. Eloise I [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From mrflynn6 at yahoo.com Tue Aug 20 13:10:43 2002 From: mrflynn6 at yahoo.com (mrflynn6) Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 13:10:43 -0000 Subject: Confirm Book 5 OoP - No Eng-to--Eng Translation? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42937 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "feliciarickmann" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "bboy_mn" wrote: > > I came across a reference somewhere (can't find it now) that > indicated > > book 5 and future books will not be translated from British English > to > American English.> > > I hope it's true. Can anyone confirm this for me? > > > > (sorry for the short post) > > > > bboy_mn > > I too heard a rumour that they might not bother, and will try and > find the link I read it at. I know Bloomsbury did not have anything > on their site last time I checked. > > Perhaps they feel there no longer the need to make the kind of > changes mentioned a long time ago in previous posts of a bygone > age....... > > After all canon is now so well established and so widely read that it > is possibly (?) not worth the effort. I was always suprised that > Scolastic worried people would not know about philosopher's stones in > the U.S. anyway. Children and those who read regularly take odd > words in their stride and find out about them later. > > Felicia > less than six weeks 'till I fly to the US!! yipee _____________________ I think that most of the translations are also unnecessary, however, there are a few that were necessary. The main one being the jumper/sweater one. A jumper in the US is a type girl's dress and it sure would make me wonder why Ron's mom is sending dresses to Harry and Ron, and the other boys for that matter. It is my understanding that Scholastic, the US publisher, does it's own editing and translations, along with JKR. It will be interesting to see if it is published word for word. I would love to get copies of the UK versions and compare all the books. Gretchen From hp_lexicon at yahoo.com Tue Aug 20 14:44:07 2002 From: hp_lexicon at yahoo.com (hp_lexicon) Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 14:44:07 -0000 Subject: "yard" / Muggle money / "Ottery" In-Reply-To: <16e.1266703b.2a93792a@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42938 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., eloiseherisson at a... wrote: I have always assumed that the Muggles could see the Burrow. Would the word "yard" really be used for a village square? That doesn't seem right at all, but maybe that's my American way of thinking of things coming through. There are a number of things to support this. As someone mentioned, the Weasleys themselves are obviously visible from the village from the Burrow since they have to be careful where they fly on broomsticks. Also, Molly wouldn't have used the phrase "I don't think he knows where it is" in reference to the postman if she knew he couldn't see the place at all. On top of that, they take the trouble to de-gnome the garden. In an interview, JKR said that one of the problems with gnomes is that their holes are a dead giveaway to Muggles that Wizards live there. I know they could be de-gnoming on to save the plants or on general principals, but frankly, I don't see them being all that particular about some lumpy patches in the ground, judging by the boots lying around. > > > > > > And who paid for all this? I think the Ministry actually has quite a stash of Muggle money around and it was this that the Weasleys tapped into. I've travelled quite a bit and every time I'm in a foreign country I find it tricky to keep a sense of how much the money is worth. I'm sure Molly doesn't think of British pounds as money, really, so paying what we would consider to be a vast sum for a taxi ride with cash that is otherwise basically worthless to her would not be such a big deal. I'm sure Arthur, as he hurried around getting ready to head for Moody's house, had someone at the Ministry "apparate" a five or six hundred pounds to the kitchen table for her to use. There is the possibility that Molly simply conjured it up, and that it vanished a couple of hours later, but that's blatant thievery and it doesn't seem like something Molly would do. > > I have also used the Ottery St Mary analogy to suggest that Ottery St > Catchpole is somewhere in south Devon, but to be fair, we don't actually > *know* that it is. It's obviously the inspiration for the name, but we don't > know the location. I don't think that Ottery St. Catchpole is Ottery St. Mary, since that's a fairly large town. But because of the Ottery in the name, it almost certainly has to be located along the Otter River, don't you think? If it were a Wizarding village, I wouldn't be so certain that they would follow naming conventions like that (although they probably would). But since it's a Muggle town, wouldn't you say that it's a sure thing? Are there examples of towns in Britain that include the name of the river but AREN'T located along or near it? Steve The (not infallible) Lexicon From bdmorrp at budget.state.ny.us Tue Aug 20 14:54:03 2002 From: bdmorrp at budget.state.ny.us (erisedstraeh2002) Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 14:54:03 -0000 Subject: Confirm Book 5 OoP - No Eng-to--Eng Translation? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42939 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "mrflynn6" wrote: > I would love to get copies of the UK versions and compare all the > books. Now me: I have the Scholastic versions of all of the books, but after hearing of the "curse" to "murder" switch, I decided to buy the UK versions to see if there were any other wording switches like that one that actually change the meaning of the text (as opposed to just clarifying what's being said, such as with the "jumper" to "sweater" example). As I read through the UK versions, I'll let the group know whether I've noticed any other such discrepancies. (I have no idea how much I paid for the books since I don't know what the current exchange rate is...) Aloha Moira (I love your name, btw!) said: >guess we'll have to wait until June 3 to find out This is the first I've heard of a June 3 date (I had heard June 2003, but not a specific date) - I was wondering where that date was confirmed? ~Phyllis From talisman22457 at yahoo.com Tue Aug 20 06:10:27 2002 From: talisman22457 at yahoo.com (talisman22457) Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 06:10:27 -0000 Subject: Old Topics and Cabbage Smelling Brits Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42940 In Old Topics (42912) Eloise clarified (in pertinent part): I was actually replying to [other member's posts] together with a ruthless snip of your post (which snip agreed with [them]). I admit to being slightly taken aback by your taking my post as a specific objection to *your* original one ***edit***If new threads do start to replicate old ones, old-timers have three options: to ignore them altogether, silently to read all the posts in the hope of something new coming up, or to point newcomers to previous discussions in the hope that they may build on them. What would you do? Talisman responds: I certainly agree that knowledgeable Listies should guide those-- regardless of their tenure--who begin to trot `round well-worn paths. However, I advocate that this be done in the gentle shimmer of a Flitwickian Charm, with all advice from Prof. Snape being soundly ignored, unless the little darlings prove incorrigible. Nonetheless, any ruffled feathers were nicely smoothed by your proper application of the heel to the notion that to be an old English person is to smell of cabbages. (It Smells Like Cabbage ... eeuuuwww) wherein bboy__mn opined that the cabbage smell in Mrs. Figg's home was not due to polyjuice potion, but to her age, saying: Have you ever been in an old person home that didn't smell, especially, if they were not psycho cleaning fanatics like Aunt Petunia? ***edit***I think the key here is 'old English person', not polyjuice or some other grand conspiracy theory. Eloise rejoined in post 42892: I rigorousy deny that when I get old (or even older!) that my house will inevitably smell of cabbage because of my nationality! ...edit... Or is your point that cabbage is particularly English? Do you think an old Welsh person's house smell of leeks or an old Scottish person's of neeps?What do elderly Americans' houses smell of? (Kudos as well to Ali who entered the fray in post 42893 saying: I hope he was merely trying to provoke a reaction, and wasn't being deliberately offensive. . . . why would JKR (an English person) want to comment on the smell of cabbage, which is obviously fairly unpleasant if it was to deride older members of her nationality?) Talisman agrees, and adds: My dear bboy, would you please step into Dumbledore's office and repeat that codswallop to him? I'm quite sure nothing about Albus smells of cabbages, though he is getting on in years. However, he's such a tolerant fellow you probably won't even get detention. Perhaps we should march you off to see Mad-Eye-Moody, instead. Tell him he's old and cabbagey and you might well end up a bouncing bowl of Cole Slaw. Talisman Who, at age 150, smells of milk thistle and aloe, and is rather giddy about being called *new.* From gohana_chan02 at lycos.com Tue Aug 20 15:03:47 2002 From: gohana_chan02 at lycos.com (Hana) Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 11:03:47 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Sirius' exclamation Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42941 Richelle said: >>Okay, here's another question for you. We've been through Dumbledore's jumping up to see Harry's arm when he told of Wormtail piercing his arm with the dagger. But what did Sirius' "vehement exclamation" mean? Is this just a "How dare he hurt my godson!" or does he pick it up as an important clue?<< bboy_mn said: >>So Sirius reaction could simple be 'Oh crap, he took your blood! Damn,this is serious; really serious!', or something to that effect.<< It could also be something more crude like F***! or another curse word. and JKR didn't want to put the actual swear word into a story that will be read by children. --- --Hana _____________________________________________________________ Play the Elvis Scratch & Win for your chance to instantly win $10,000 Cash - a 2003 Harley Davidson Sportster - 1 of 25,000 CD's - and more! http://r.lycos.com/r/sagel_mail/_scratch_tl/http://win.ipromotions.com/lycos_020801/index.asp?tc=7087 From speedygonzo242 at hotmail.com Tue Aug 20 15:11:09 2002 From: speedygonzo242 at hotmail.com (frankielee242) Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 15:11:09 -0000 Subject: The Magical Room Hiden in Hogwarts In-Reply-To: <006701c247f1$a4487e60$badef718@kzo.chartermi.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42942 > Melody said: > Ooo, I like that. It is a room that arrives and help you when you are > in great need. Glad the room was full of chamber pots and not > urinals. Somehow chamber pots are more...fitting to Dumbledore's old, > romantic character. If that theory is so, then it leaves JKR with > many possibilities with plot lines. I wonder if the room is > dependable to arrive or just a chance happening? Is there a way to > call it? I wonder also if Dumbledore has seen it before? Way to much > to think about before bedtime.<<<<<<<<<<<< HF wrote: > Indeed, especially if you've had a lot of fluids Dveil's advocate: Perhaps JRK was stuck in the interview after having a lot of fluids herself and was just teasing... HF wrote: > I think there's evidence in the series to indicate that need-driven >magic is powerful stuff. For example, when Harry remembers >desperately trying to get away from his tormentors at school (PS/SS), >he somehow levitates himself up to the school roof in order to >escape. Lily's self-sacrifice spell might fall under that category as >well -- when something is so desperately needed that the power of >human will can make it so (call it a miracle, maybe.) Reminds me of the news stories about tiny, elderly mothers lifting cars off of their mechanically inclined children when the jacks collapse. There seems to be a direct connection between intention and strength for magic to happen in the WW. Will power, control and mind over matter "with emotional content... like a finger pointing away to the moon." Thank you, Bruce Lee. Seriously, think of the Shaolin monks training for special abilities. They spend hours focused on controlling and creating a specific response which winds up looking supernatural. Frankie From gwendolyngrace at yahoo.com Tue Aug 20 15:15:29 2002 From: gwendolyngrace at yahoo.com (gwendolyngrace) Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 15:15:29 -0000 Subject: [[HPforGrownups] Why Does Lucius Still Have Influence After the Diary!Riddle Incident?] In-Reply-To: <20020819203551.5050.qmail@uwdvg001.cms.usa.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42943 Be amazed, for it is da Gwen, and I am... posting to the list! That hasn't happened in a while. --- In HPforGrownups at y..., heidit at n... wrote: > > Actually, I think you're making a bit of a leap back from the sacking to the > connection to the diary. It's entirely possible that Dumbledore and a few > others know the truth but that Lucius had enough influence, even at that > point, to allow himself to be thrown off the board under a pretense - perhaps > a false accusation of Hagrid combined with the force pressed against the other > governers on that paper to force Dumbledore down as headmaster. > Not surprisingly, I'm agreeing with Heidi. In addition, I think that there's a clue in Dumbledore's statement to Fudge in GoF that he has "always placed too much emphasis on the purity of blood" (quote from memory, "Parting of the Ways," which is chapter 33, IIRC). Thus Fudge himself may be more willing to believe Lucius's story--whatever it is--both at the time of his resignation from the Board of Governors and during the Buckbeak trial. Another factor is that someone who's willing to blackmail, bully, or threaten the governors into demanding Dumbledore's resignation is likely also to be able to blackmail, bully, or threaten them into covering up the reasons behind his own dismissal. And of course, money does inevitably talk. And a politician like Fudge isn't going to let a little thing like attempted murder stand in the way of lining his campaign chests.... But more importantly, Lucius is "slippery." He knows, I think, exactly how to ingratiate himself and where and when to do it. In the case of CoS, I absolutely don't believe that the truth about the diary went public. Assuredly Dumbledore, Harry, Hermione, all the Weasleys, and the governors found out, but I believe that's all. Sometimes with important and influential people, rather than actually firing the person, the board "asks for a resignation," and therefore there's an appearance of less turbulent change than there really is. I wouldn't be at all surprised if Lucius was "asked" for his resignation, and it's through the rumour mill that everyone hears he was actually sacked. Still, merely leaving the board of governors of a private school, even if it's a major institution in the wizarding world, wouldn't necessarily translate to losing a lot of face in the Ministry. And the Buckbeak matter really wasn't handled by the school governors, except in terms of Hagrid. You'll notice Lucius did NOT have enough influence to arrange for Hagrid's dismissal, even though he tried. The realm he manipulated for his revenge was in the Ministry, not in the school. Gwen From bdmorrp at budget.state.ny.us Tue Aug 20 15:17:16 2002 From: bdmorrp at budget.state.ny.us (erisedstraeh2002) Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 15:17:16 -0000 Subject: Chamber Pot Room As Portkey (WAS: The Magical Room Hidden in Hogwarts) In-Reply-To: <006701c247f1$a4487e60$badef718@kzo.chartermi.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42944 Melody said (regarding the chamber pot room mentioned in GoF): > It is a room that arrives and helps you when you are in great > need. I wonder if the room is dependable to arrive or > just a chance happening? Is there a way to call it? and HF (yr awen) responded: > I think there's evidence in the series to indicate that need-driven > magic is powerful stuff. If something like the "Chamber(Pot) of > Secrets" room requires need to access it, it probably won't respond > to an ordinary incantation. Now me: What if a witch or wizard could summon the chamber pot room when she/he has an urgent need to return to Hogwarts? Hermione tells us over and over again that you can't Apparate within the Hogwarts grounds, which has led to speculation about how Dumbledore got back to Hogwarts so quickly to help Harry after he encounters Quirrellmort in PS/SS. Perhaps the chamber pot room can be summoned in times of great need to return to Hogwarts quickly (sort of like a portkey). This would also concur with Eloise's latin derivation of "mentioned" as meaning "thought of" - when you think of the room, you find yourself there! ~Phyllis who loves HF's "Chamber(Pot) of Secrets" idea From jenP_97 at yahoo.com Tue Aug 20 15:35:26 2002 From: jenP_97 at yahoo.com (jenp_97) Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 15:35:26 -0000 Subject: Muggle money In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42945 Here's hoping I get the attributions right... --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "hp_lexicon" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., eloiseherisson at a... wrote: > > > And who paid for all this? > > I think the Ministry actually has quite a stash of Muggle money > around and it was this that the Weasleys tapped into. I've travelled > quite a bit and every time I'm in a foreign country I find it tricky > to keep a sense of how much the money is worth. I'm sure Molly > doesn't think of British pounds as money, really, so paying what we > would consider to be a vast sum for a taxi ride with cash that is > otherwise basically worthless to her would not be such a big deal. > I'm sure Arthur, as he hurried around getting ready to head for > Moody's house, had someone at the Ministry "apparate" a five or six > hundred pounds to the kitchen table for her to use. > > There is the possibility that Molly simply conjured it up, and that > it vanished a couple of hours later, but that's blatant thievery and > it doesn't seem like something Molly would do. > I agree with you about Molly not seeming like the type of person to conjure up money (knowing that it would vanish later) and then use it to pay for Muggle things (be it taxi rides or postage stamps or whatever). However, I always pictured that instead of the ministry having muggle money on hand and "apparating" it to the Weasleys' kitchen table, Arthur instead took a certain sum out of a discretionary account at the Ministry (perhaps the "Funds for getting Harry out of a Jam" or "Emergency Muggle Transportation" account?), and then changed it into muggle money at Gringotts, a la Hermione's parents changing muggle money into wizarding loot. I wonder how easy it would be for Arthur, once arriving at the Ministry, to remember that the kids had no way of getting to Kings Cross, stick his head in a fireplace and request the discretionary funds (making sure to mention that Harry was in his group needing the money), have someone change it into Muggle money, and then call up Molly in the fireplace again, hand her the cash, and kiss her goodbye... JenP, who wonders if this amount of thought about a taxi ride means something sinister... From yrawen at ontheqt.org Tue Aug 20 17:27:20 2002 From: yrawen at ontheqt.org (yr awen) Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 13:27:20 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Chamber Pot Room As Portkey (WAS: The Magical Room Hidden in Hogwarts) References: Message-ID: <003501c2486e$d81bd3e0$badef718@kzo.chartermi.net> No: HPFGUIDX 42946 Phyllis said: What if a witch or wizard could summon the chamber pot room when she/he has an urgent need to return to Hogwarts? Hermione tells us over and over again that you can't Apparate within the Hogwarts grounds, which has led to speculation about how Dumbledore got back to Hogwarts so quickly to help Harry after he encounters Quirrellmort in PS/SS. Perhaps the chamber pot room can be summoned in times of great need to return to Hogwarts quickly (sort of like a portkey).<<<<<<<< Oooh, I like! Or maybe, to take a somewhat different approach to your theory (or to reword it slightly), at least with respect to Dumbledore's quick return in PS/SS, is that in times of great need to get back to Hogwarts, *any* door opened from any location will take an individual straight to the chamber pot room. So say Dumbledore was at the Ministry or whatever and learned suddenly that his school was under attack -- he simply makes for the men's restroom (or any room at all -- I'm just being a bit facetious here), opens the door, and steps directly into the chamber pot room in Hogwarts. ~Phyllis who loves HF's "Chamber(Pot) of Secrets" idea<<<<<<< ::squeal:: She likes my idea!!! HF. -- www.ontheqt.org eth.pitas.com Habent sua fata libelli. /Books have their own destiny.\ + terentianus maurus + [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From heidit at netbox.com Tue Aug 20 17:12:15 2002 From: heidit at netbox.com (heidit at netbox.com) Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 17:12:15 -0000 Subject: [[HPforGrownups] Re: Eng-to--Eng Translation Message-ID: <20020820171215.10462.qmail@uwdvg020.cms.usa.net> No: HPFGUIDX 42947 "erisedstraeh2002" wrote: > Real-To: "erisedstraeh2002" > > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "mrflynn6" wrote: > > > I would love to get copies of the UK versions and compare all the > > books. > ErisedStraeh wrote > > As I read through the UK versions, I'll let the group know > whether I've noticed any other such discrepancies. (I have no idea > how much I paid for the books since I don't know what the current > exchange rate is...) > I'm sure everyone would appreciate the gesture - I know there's a page out there which lists all the differences, but all I was able to find just now was a list of the changes in chapter one of book one here: http://www.geocities.com/evelynleeper/potter.htm - it shows just how many tiny changes there are on a few short pages. heidi ____________________________________________________________________ This message was sent from my Palm wireless email account. From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Tue Aug 20 17:26:54 2002 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (bboy_mn) Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 17:26:54 -0000 Subject: It Smells like Cabbage! ....YIKES! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42948 Yikes! Yikes! and double Yikes! I didn't think my 'old people smell' comment was going to generate such a controversy. Sorry. --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "bboy_mn" wrote: > Sorry but I think you are making too big a deal about this smell > of cabage thing. (sub-topic of the search for the meaning of > Arabella and other Mrs. Figg related discussion) > > Have you ever been in an old person home that didn't smell, > especially, if they were not psycho cleaning fanatics like > Aunt Petunia? > > They all smell funny, and smell even worse if the person happens > to fancy cats. > > Mrs. Figg is an old English person, her house smells like cooked > cabbage. > > Mr. Perkins, who Mr. Weasley borrowed the tent from, is an old > English person and his tent smells like cabbage. > > I think the key here is 'old English person', not polyjuice or some > other grand conspiracy theory. > > .... EDITED .... > Hey, it could happen. > > bboy_mn Several people responded to this post in independant posts where several topics were grouped together, and apparently took my statement to say that all old English people smell like cabbage. That's not quite what I said, although upon rereading it, it looks more like that than I intended. My point was that there were some pretty wild speculations running around about who and what Mrs. Figg was, and while they were fun to discuss and read, I thought they were supported by very little evidence. Still fun though. My point was that there is more evidence indicating that Mrs. Figg is just an old lady who's house smells. Lots of old peoples houses smell. True it's a generalization, and generalizations like stereotypes while based in reality, are not universally true. Every generalization or stereotype, no matter how true, falls apart when you start applying it to individuals. My point was not that ALL old English people smell like cabage. It was that all (within reasonable boundaries) old peoples homes smell. Let's look at the evidence- Evidence for Mrs. Figg being involved in some grand polyjuice conspiracy = ??????? wild, but fun, speculation Evidence that Mrs. Figg is just an old English lady, who, it has become known, is also a witch, an OLD witch. Figg= old, English, similar older style of home furnishings, house smells like cabbage and cats. Perkins= old, English, similar older style of home furnishings, house/tent smells like cabbage and cats. Very old people have different tastes in food, so it is more likely that someone in their 70's would eat cooked cabbage than someone in their 20's. Also, note that people with common ethnic or national heritage, are more likely to eat similar foods. In my grandmother's house, you were more likely to find lutefisk than gefilte fish. Also, young people don't smell that much. Prepubesent kids hardly smell at all. They can go for days without a shower and while dirty, they really don't smell. The fact is, that the older you get the more you smell, and the more you develope a very unique smell. This is problably also related to why a kid is more likely to notice that an old person's house smells than an adult. In summary, sometimes the most obvious explaination is the right one. bboy_mn From niemuthervin at worldnet.att.net Tue Aug 20 16:32:13 2002 From: niemuthervin at worldnet.att.net (animagi_raven) Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 16:32:13 -0000 Subject: The clock revisited and other musings Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42949 Animagus_Raven throws off the invisibility cloak and shouts "Ahh, Haaaa" looks confused and somewhat embarrassed "Sorry, I though you were professors Snape and Quirrel in an animated conversation." Well, as long as I am here I have some additional points for the clock: bboy_mn started a riot by bringing up the clock in message #42797: > 2.) When you buy a clock like that, at first, it seems pretty cool, > but if you are Mrs. Weasley sitting at home night after night staring > at the clock, just waiting for one of the hands to move to 'mortal > peril', I would think it would drive you nuts. Heather fed fuel to the fire by adding in message #42812: > In my GoF, it mentions > "home", "school", "work", "traveling", "lost", > "hospital", "prison", and, on the number twelve > position, "mortal peril". The clock: maybe it in not a `grandfather' clock but a `mother' clock. Several of the `bad' locations/dispositions on the clock are thing that mothers scream at you when you come home late. "You could been in the hospital or arrested or lost (or in mortal danger?) My wife (who is a mother) wanted to point out that since it is a magical clock it could have a large database of potential locations/dispositions that it could swap onto the face if needed. The one's that Harry see might be the `default' setting. I relate this so that when JKR changes them later on we have something to fall back on rather than calling it a FLINT. Notice that there is no `up to no good' on the clock. Fred and George's hands would probably be parked there permanently. That setting was probably removed. On a related topic, I wonder how fast a Sneakoscope would last around Fred and George? It would probably burn itself up rather quickly. And on other unrelated topics: Regarding Sirius not wanting to apparate while in hiding: In all mentions of Pettigrew leaving the scene of his `murder' all reference have been to him changing into a rat and going down a sewer. (This is related, wait until I get to it) Why does no one suspect that he apparated? Is it because apparating is a powerful spell and would have been detected but no such spell was detected? Therefore, if he wasn't there (except for a finger) and he didn't apparate ? he must be dead (since no one except the Marauders knew that he could transform). On magic creating things `out of thin air'. I believe everyone has missed a point. The house elves have to prepare all of the meals that Dumbledore simply moves from the kitchens tables to the tables in the hall above. If Dumbledore could create meals out of nothing all those house elves would be out of jobs. My theory is that powerful wizards keep stores of metals, cloth, provisions, etc. that they can summon and shape when the need arises, thereby appearing to create them `out of thin air.' The Hogwort's storage probably were the source of the sleeping bags. Did it strike anyone else that Bill and Charlie's job are pretty convenient for later use in the story? If a large amount of fire power is needed a Norwegian Ridgeback comes right to mind. But it is the curse-breaker for Gringotts (and apparently a good one, too) that got my attention. Anyone willing to stick their neck out on potentials for that. I just point out the bumpy roads that lead over the cliff, it don't drive down them Addition questions to amaze and mystify: 1) Do wizards pay taxes? Who is footing the bill for the MoM? Do part of our muggles taxes pay for our being kept safe and secure from wizards and witches and also in the dark about them? Is that the real reason our (muggle) taxes are so high? 2) Who teaches Muggle Studies? How about Arthimancy? (My vote goes to Prof. Flitwick for Arithmancy but no idea for Muggle Studies ? Bins, perhaps ?it seems like a dry subject.) Has JKR said that we have met all the existing professors or are there some we haven't met yet? 3) Could Arabella Figg be Dumbledore's girlfriend? Take that all you Sirius girlfriend theorists. I'm voting that `old' people are old. P.S. Grey wolf: did you take your name from another series of books in which a boy grows up to be a wizard ? excuse me ? sorcerer? (must get the job descriptions correct) Fyre Wood you scare me. Not because of you fascination with DEs and Riddle (ref: #42828 and #42867) but because you work in a Taco Bell What is a nice DE hopeful like you doing in a place like that? Is putting too much hot sauce sort of like a Cruciatus curse? Is that the attraction? Bows to Dave for getting in a Red Dwarf reference (#42850). Animagus_Raven throws the invisibility cloak back on a slinks silently off. From psychic_serpent at yahoo.com Tue Aug 20 18:33:41 2002 From: psychic_serpent at yahoo.com (Barb P) Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 11:33:41 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] "yard" / Muggle money / "Ottery" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020820183341.6002.qmail@web13008.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 42950 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "hp_lexicon" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., eloiseherisson at a... wrote: > > I have always assumed that the Muggles could see the Burrow. Would > the word "yard" really be used for a village square? That doesn't > seem right at all, but maybe that's my American way of thinking of > things coming through. > > There are a number of things to support this. As someone mentioned, > the Weasleys themselves are obviously visible from the village from > the Burrow since they have to be careful where they fly on > broomsticks. Also, Molly wouldn't have used the phrase "I don't > think he knows where it is" in reference to the postman if she knew > he couldn't see the place at all. On top of that, they take the > trouble to de-gnome the garden. In an interview, JKR said that one > of the problems with gnomes is that their holes are a dead giveaway > to Muggles that Wizards live there. I know they could be de-gnoming > on to save the plants or on general principals, but frankly, I > don't see them being all that particular about some lumpy patches > in the ground, judging by the boots lying around. I think JKR was being facetious when she said that. After all, Muggles aren't supposed to know about wizards, so they can hardly be aware of what the warning signs of a wizard neighbor are. I think the road that the Burrow is on is probably not used much by anyone (probably a dirt road) and the Burrow obviously doesn't have a house number. While other houses that go by names and not numbers are able to receive Muggle post, that is probably only because the post office has been informed of how to find those houses. There has been no need in the past for the post office to know how to find the Burrow, so if the Ottery St. Catchpole post office (Harry would need to look up the correct post code for this to begin with) received mail addressed to "The Burrow," they wouldn't know what to do with it. > > > And who paid for all this? > > I think the Ministry actually has quite a stash of Muggle money > around and it was this that the Weasleys tapped into. I've > travelled quite a bit and every time I'm in a foreign country I > find it tricky to keep a sense of how much the money is worth. I'm > sure Molly doesn't think of British pounds as money, really, so > paying what we would consider to be a vast sum for a taxi ride with > cash that is otherwise basically worthless to her would not be such > a big deal. Oh, I sincerely doubt this. We have no evidence that Molly is as clueless about pounds as Arthur. I would, in fact, expect her to be far more knowledgeable than him, in fact, as she may have had occasion to go into the village to buy things from time to time (if she couldn't conjure it or buy it in Diagon Alley). > I'm sure Arthur, as he hurried around getting ready to head for > Moody's house, had someone at the Ministry "apparate" a five or six > hundred pounds to the kitchen table for her to use. This is extremely unlikely, IMNSHO. Gringotts is run by goblins, not the Ministry. (You have to wonder if this was some settlement from one of the goblin rebellions.) There is no doubt an exchange rate. (I would expect goblins to be very nasty about this, too.) Hermione's parents, for instance, bring pounds to Gringotts to exchange for wizarding money so that they can shop for Hermione's school supplies. There is absolutely nothing in the books that gives the impression that the Ministry would just give away hundreds of pounds. Five hundred pounds would equal about one-hundred Galleons. They would need to BUY the pounds at Gringotts, using wizarding money, plus paying an exchange rate, very likely. If the Ministry didn't think anything of giving money away, they'd be paying Arthur Weasley more than they are. > There is the possibility that Molly simply conjured it up, and that > it vanished a couple of hours later, but that's blatant thievery > and it doesn't seem like something Molly would do. Yes, more and more unlikely. Which is why the Ministry probably wouldn't do it either. And if they didn't do it this way, they'd have to get it from Gringotts. (See above.) I think that when Molly made a shopping trip to Diagon Alley, she simply stopped in the bank to exchange some wizarding money for Muggle money. There's no reason to turn this into a big mystery. Yes, Arthur stares at the "bits of paper" during GoF, wondering how anyone could think they're money. But he doesn't just toss a fifty-pound note at Roberts and tell him to keep the change, does he? It's still money, and he does know that, as much as his basic instincts fight against it. --Barb http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Psychic_Serpent http://www.schnoogle.com/authorLinks/Barb --------------------------------- Do You Yahoo!? HotJobs, a Yahoo! service - Search Thousands of New Jobs [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From eloiseherisson at aol.com Tue Aug 20 18:34:15 2002 From: eloiseherisson at aol.com (eloiseherisson at aol.com) Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 14:34:15 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] "yard" / Muggle money / "Ottery" Message-ID: <6c.210aed1f.2a93e5a7@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 42951 Steve: > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., eloiseherisson at a... wrote: Err.......no I didn't! I don't think I even quoted the bit below, or is that yours, Steve? > > I have always assumed that the Muggles could see the Burrow. Would > the word "yard" really be used for a village square? That doesn't > seem right at all, but maybe that's my American way of thinking of > things coming through. > > There are a number of things to support this. As someone mentioned, > the Weasleys themselves are obviously visible from the village from > the Burrow since they have to be careful where they fly on > broomsticks. Also, Molly wouldn't have used the phrase "I don't > think he knows where it is" in reference to the postman if she knew > he couldn't see the place at all. On top of that, they take the > trouble to de-gnome the garden. In an interview, JKR said that one > of the problems with gnomes is that their holes are a dead giveaway > to Muggles that Wizards live there. I know they could be de-gnoming > on to save the plants or on general principals, but frankly, I don't > see them being all that particular about some lumpy patches in the > ground, judging by the boots lying around. Just for the record, my understanding is that the house has a yard (an area of hard standing or whatever and possibly home to the chicken coops, Arthur's shed, etc.) round the front and an area of grass, etc, round the back. And no, a village square would *not* be called a yard. And yes, I'm sure the house is physically findable by Muggles (the clear implication of the postman statement), only it's probably off down a track somewhere that no Muggles would normally go down. Incidentally, I'm surprised that gnome holes really *are* a dead give away, since rabbits, foxes, and badgers all make holes and Muggles don't believe in the WW. Like the shrinking keys, surely they'd just find a rational explanation? > > > > > > > > > > > And who paid for all this? > > I think the Ministry actually has quite a stash of Muggle money > around and it was this that the Weasleys tapped into. I've travelled > quite a bit and every time I'm in a foreign country I find it tricky > to keep a sense of how much the money is worth. I'm sure Molly > doesn't think of British pounds as money, really, so paying what we > would consider to be a vast sum for a taxi ride with cash that is > otherwise basically worthless to her would not be such a big deal. > I'm sure Arthur, as he hurried around getting ready to head for > Moody's house, had someone at the Ministry "apparate" a five or six > hundred pounds to the kitchen table for her to use. > > There is the possibility that Molly simply conjured it up, and that > it vanished a couple of hours later, but that's blatant thievery and > it doesn't seem like something Molly would do. > Do you think it was seen as a legitimate expense, then? That the Weasleys wouldn't have to pay it back? OK. this bit *is* me (Eloise) > > > > > > I have also used the Ottery St Mary analogy to suggest that Ottery > St > > Catchpole is somewhere in south Devon, but to be fair, we don't > actually > > *know* that it is. It's obviously the inspiration for the name, > but we don't > > know the location. > > I don't think that Ottery St. Catchpole is Ottery St. Mary, since > that's a fairly large town. But because of the Ottery in the name, > it almost certainly has to be located along the Otter River, don't > you think? If it were a Wizarding village, I wouldn't be so certain > that they would follow naming conventions like that (although they > probably would). But since it's a Muggle town, wouldn't you say that > it's a sure thing? Are there examples of towns in Britain that > include the name of the river but AREN'T located along or near it? No, I don't think it *is* Ottery St Mary, either, but the name is obviously an analogy to that. I agree that it *should* be on the Otter. But I think part of the reason for the name is (my old theory that hardly anyone but Debbie supports) that it is because the Weasleys are named after Weasels, close relatives of stoats (as in Stoats Head Hill) and Otters. I'm not sure that might not have outweighed real Muggle geography. Just because Muggles use a particular convention in naming places does't *necessarily* mean that JKR would conform to that convention in naming a fictional place. OTOH, I suppose she might have sorted out her fictional geography *before* naming the Weasleys. Or....there might be another R.Otter! We still have the problem of how they made it to the train on time from that distance. Definitely fallible!Eloise (who knows that her keys shrink and is now wondering just how those huge sections of road near here came to *collapse* into craters last year.) > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From grega126 at aol.com Tue Aug 20 19:14:11 2002 From: grega126 at aol.com (greg_a126) Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 19:14:11 -0000 Subject: Why Does Lucius Still Have Influence After the Diary!Riddle Incident? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42952 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "erisedstraeh2002" wrote: > I was hoping to get the input of the group on a question I have > regarding Lucius Malfoy. At the end of CoS, Harry tells Lucius > Malfoy that Ginny got the diary because Lucius gave it to her at > Flourish and Blotts. Lucius responds by hissing "Prove it" (CoS, US > paperback ed., p. 336). Dumbledore then says "Oh, no one will be > able to do that...Not now that Riddle has vanished from the book. On > the other hand, I would advise you, Lucius, not to go giving out any > more of Lord Voldemort's old school things. If any more of them find > their way into innocent hands, I think Arthur Weasley, for one, will > make sure they are traced back to you" (pgs. 336-337). > > This implies that only Dumbledore and Harry know the truth about how > Ginny got Riddle's diary. However, this must have been communicated > to others, for on p. 340 we learn that "Lucius Malfoy had been sacked > as a school governor." > > OK, so good, so far. The news was broadcast that Lucius was behind > the diary, and he got what was coming to him (although I think > Azkaban would have been more appropriate, but I digress). But here's > where I get confused - how, after being sacked as a school governor, > and presuming that his "sacking" was due to others learning about his > role in the Diary!Riddle incident, did Lucius still have the > influence needed to order Buckbeak's execution? > ~Phyllis > hoping this hasn't been endlessly discussed before Here's how I always read it. No one likes being bullied into something you don't really want do do, not once, but especially not twice. Further, if you find out that you were actually right, you'd be especially ticked at doing something you didn't want to do. Malfoy convinced them to not only sac Dumbledore, but send Hagrid off to Azkaban. I always saw this as the reason that the rest of the school governors chose to get rid of him. But just b/c the school governors are ticked at him, I see no reason why the Ministry would feel the same way. Plus, as of right now we don't really know what it is that Lucius does. He could be providing some vital service to the wizards on that committee that he could threaten to with hold if he didn't get his way. Greg From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Tue Aug 20 19:28:05 2002 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (bboy_mn) Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 19:28:05 -0000 Subject: "yard" / Muggle money / "Ottery" In-Reply-To: <20020820183341.6002.qmail@web13008.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42953 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Barb P wrote: ......MADSO..... (Monstrous Amount of Data Snipped Out) .... > > I think that when Molly made a shopping trip to Diagon Alley, she simply stopped in the bank to exchange some wizarding money for Muggle money. There's no reason to turn this into a big mystery. Yes, Arthur stares at the "bits of paper" during GoF, wondering how anyone could think they're money. But he doesn't just toss a fifty-pound note at Roberts and tell him to keep the change, does he? It's still money, and he does know that, as much as his basic instincts fight against it. > > --Barb > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Psychic_Serpent > http://www.schnoogle.com/authorLinks/Barb Above statement is related to the discussion of how Molly Weasley paid for the 3 taxis used to take everyone to London. I seriouly doubt that someone as desperate for money as Molly, went to the bank and withdrew $500 to pay for a taxi ride. When Harry accompanied her to the Weasley vault; there was nothing but a few Sickles and a couple of Galleons. These are not the kind of people who had $500 laying around to spend on a cab ride. Remember this is three taxis taken on a +200 mile taxi ride. I would think Arthur could have bought another used Ford Anglia for that much money, so I seriously doubt that taxi ride was paid for with Weasley money. Also, note that if Molly, Bill, and Charlie could drive a muggle car, they could have rented three cars or a car and small truck for less than the taxi ride. What really baffles me, is why they didn't take the train? I haven't been to England, but in Germany, you can take the train from anywhere to anywhere, even to and from the smallest village. Trains make more stops but when they are moving, they are moving fast, and rarely get hung up in heavy traffic. My vote is for the Ministry to have provided the cash. They seem to feel an obligation to safeguard Harry. I don't think Mr. Weasley would have gotten top box/VIP box tickets if Harry hadn't been with them. Ron, did say his dad can usually get tickets from work, but I really doubt he would have gotten top box tickets. I have no doubt that there is a certain amount of muggle money in the wizards world, and what does get collected is exchanged at the bank for wizards money, and this gives the bank a supply of muggle money. I'm sure there are occassions when wizards come to the bank and need muggle money so they can buy things in London. I also believe that the goblins have some way of transferring money between the wizard world and the magic world, maybe a bank account at some large bank that they use to pull muggle money into and send money out of the wizards bank. bboy_mn From ksnidget at aol.com Tue Aug 20 19:54:09 2002 From: ksnidget at aol.com (ksnidget at aol.com) Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 15:54:09 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Professors (was: The clock revisited and other musings) Message-ID: <0437FC14.2FFE29A5.007B4FA9@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 42954 Animagus_Raven throws off the invisibility cloak and wondered among other things: >Who teaches Muggle Studies? How about Arthimancy? (My vote goes >to Prof. Flitwick for Arithmancy but no idea for Muggle Studies >Bins, perhaps it seems like a dry subject.) Has JKR said that we >have met all the existing professors or are there some we haven't met >yet? I know of no statement that implies we have met all of the professors. Professor Vector is the Arithmancy instructor. I don't think a name has been given for the Muggle Studies professors... but my memory could be faulty. Ksnidget From eloiseherisson at aol.com Tue Aug 20 19:59:55 2002 From: eloiseherisson at aol.com (eloiseherisson at aol.com) Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 15:59:55 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: It Smells like Cabbage! ....YIKES! Message-ID: <16c.126fae7e.2a93f9bb@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 42955 In a message dated 20/08/2002 18:28:53 GMT Standard Time, bboy_mn at yahoo.com writes: > > My point was not that ALL old English people smell like cabage. It was > that all (within reasonable boundaries) old peoples homes smell. OK, now we're down simply to an ageist point, rather than an ageist/racist one. (J/K!) Yes, the sense of smell is dulled with age (or so I'm told). I do understand your point, really, it was just a little unfortunately expressed. Well, we all do that from time to time! ;-) > > Let's look at the evidence- > Evidence for Mrs. Figg being involved in some grand polyjuice > conspiracy = ??????? wild, but fun, speculation Aah yes...But you see, some of us specialise in that, at least for part of the time (the part of the time when we're not saying, 'don't be so ridiculous, that could never happen!') And it's not conspiracy, because it's part of Dumbledore's plan. It's one of those irregular verbs. You know, I plan, You scheme, They are involved in grand conspiracies... As for the speculation being wild........You think *that's* wild?........ > > Evidence that Mrs. Figg is just an old English lady, who, it has > become known, is also a witch, an OLD witch. > > Figg= old, English, similar older style of home furnishings, house > smells like cabbage and cats. > > Perkins= old, English, similar older style of home furnishings, > house/tent smells like cabbage and cats. Err, no. Actually, Perkins' tent smells strongly of cats, but *not* IIRC of cabbage. > > Very old people have different tastes in food, so it is more likely > that someone in their 70's would eat cooked cabbage than someone in > their 20's. Hey! My kids *love* cabbage! It's *good* for you! (But my home doesn't smell of it!) Also, note that people with common ethnic or national> > heritage, are more likely to eat similar foods. In my grandmother's > house, you were more likely to find lutefisk than gefilte fish. Agreed. But cabbage is hardly a national dish. Now our stereotype (and it's a sterotype, therefore unfair, before anyone yells at me) is that it's the Germans who eat cabbage) > > Also, young people don't smell that much. Prepubesent kids hardly > smell at all. They can go for days without a shower and while dirty, > they really don't smell. Questionable. Depends on the age and which end you smell, in my experience. ;-) But then mothers have slightly more intimate contact with their offspring. But yes, I know what you mean. The fact is, that the older you get the more> > you smell, and the more you develope a very unique smell. This is > problably also related to why a kid is more likely to notice that an > old person's house smells than an adult. I quite agree that older people don't notice smells that we would probably try to eliminate and that they do have different eating habits, use different products, etc. I'm surprised we've never had a mention of moth-balls, though, in this context! (A really stereotypical older person's house smell.) But really, I know quite a few older people who don't smell as far as I'm concerned! Maybe I'm too old to notice! > > In summary, sometimes the most obvious explaination is the right one. Oh, it is. But try convincing this list! Confidentially, I think whoever made the point that the cabbage smells might simply be part of JKR's slightly restricted descriptive vocabulary might well be right. But hey, Polyjuiced Arabella is far more interesting. And in any case, it'll be proved right or wrong eventually. How about another obvious explanation? Arabella Figg isn't even a witch, but is a little old lady who is nevertheless part of Dumbledore's network, providing inside Muggle information and keeping an eye on Harry for him. That would explain why the abuse Harry suffers at home goes unchecked, as Arabella wouldn't be able to see what went on in the home. Eloise Now deeply conflicted as she doesn't know whether to be Bangy or Boring. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Tue Aug 20 20:07:51 2002 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (bboy_mn) Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 20:07:51 -0000 Subject: "yard" / Muggle money / "Ottery" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42956 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "hp_lexicon" wrote: > > > eloiseherisson ?: > > > > I have also used the Ottery St Mary analogy to suggest that > > Ottery St Catchpole is somewhere in south Devon, but to be fair, > > we don't actually *know* that it is. It's obviously the > > inspiration for the name, but we don't know the location. > > I don't think that Ottery St. Catchpole is Ottery St. Mary, since > that's a fairly large town. But because of the Ottery in the name, > it almost certainly has to be located along the Otter River, don't > you think? If it were a Wizarding village, I wouldn't be so certain > that they would follow naming conventions like that (although they > probably would). But since it's a Muggle town, wouldn't you say that > it's a sure thing? Are there examples of towns in Britain that > include the name of the river but AREN'T located along or near it? > > Steve > The (not infallible) Lexicon bboy_mn responds: Ottery St Mary is not Ottery St Catchpole but for purposes of estimating the cost of the taxi ride from the Burrow to London is as good a place as any. I'll have to see if I can track it down, but I'm sure one of the books says that Ottery St Catchpole is in Devon, and Devon is not that big a place. Plus, Ottery St Mary is near the east side of Devon, so for estimating the distance/cost by taxi to London, it's an excellent reference point. Did you know that there is a Burrow Hill Fm (fm=farm????) just south of Ottery St Mary, and just west of Wiggaton, which places it less than 1.5 miles from Ottry St Mary. (See MultiMap.com, which also has aerial photo maps of the England/Wales/Scotland) bboy_mn From rlundgren at gov.mb.ca Tue Aug 20 18:16:21 2002 From: rlundgren at gov.mb.ca (freya122000) Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 18:16:21 -0000 Subject: Minister of Magic Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42957 New to the group. Just wondering, who was minister of magic during Voldemort attacks? And what happened to them? "Freya" From iamtoni_01 at yahoo.com Tue Aug 20 18:53:43 2002 From: iamtoni_01 at yahoo.com (t g) Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 11:53:43 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Digest Number 2066 In-Reply-To: <1029856538.6474.26527.m13@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <20020820185343.31338.qmail@web21104.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 42958 Melody wrote: I have a question from POA and was wondering if anyone else found this ponderable. In the Shrieking Shack before Lupin arrived, Harry, Ron, and Hermione struggled and fought Black off and tackled him to the ground. Harry then stood above Black with his wand raised to "kill" Sirius. Now how was it possible for Harry to kill Black with his wand when Harry did not even learn of the words that brought the killing spell about until Moody's class in GOF? Even then Moody said that the whole class was too young to cause any real damage to anyone. So, how was Harry going to kill Black? Wouldn't Black realize that, well maybe not since he was overpowered by three thriteen-year-olds? How could a skinny little Harry Potter kill large, though still skinny, ans older Black? Thought I'd throw that one out. Not sure if ya'll had discussed it before. I think that it was simply a scene meant to convey just how much hate an fear and all the stuff a thirteen year old kid might feel given the life that Harry's had. Though it is true he did not learn the AK to kill anyone until much later, but he also knew from past experience (with Dudley) that he had only to think very hard and concentrate very hard on a certain situation, and "things" just happened. That nothing really happened to Sirius, despite all of Harry's "concentration" and wanting to "kill" him, he was standing over him with a lot of mixed feelings and emotion--and what if "gasp" what Sirius was saying "WAS true, and..." It would seem that yes, Black would realize it --that Harry would not be able to really "kill" him but he was in a weakened state, and though not really afraid" if I remember correctly--Black pulled an expelliarmus, just in case... Toni --------------------------------- Do You Yahoo!? HotJobs, a Yahoo! service - Search Thousands of New Jobs [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From xp39c at yahoo.com Tue Aug 20 20:41:22 2002 From: xp39c at yahoo.com (xp39c) Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 20:41:22 -0000 Subject: Fudge: Ever-so-Evil or Bumbling Fool? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42959 Phyllis wrote: > At the risk of sounding like an idiot, I *don't* think it's obvious > that Fudge is ever-so-evil. I think JKR is intentionally trying to > make us vascillate between Fudge as ever-so-evil and Fudge as > bumbling fool. > > The first time we're introduced to Fudge, he's described as "wearing > a strange mixture of clothes: a pinstriped suit, a scarlet tie, a > long black cloak, and pointed purple boots. Under his arm he carried > a lime-green bowler" (CoS, US paperback ed., pgs. 260-261). Sounds > like a cross between a vampire and a clown to me! The "pinstriped > suit" suggests a proper businessperson; the "scarlet tie" - perhaps > suggesting a scarlet A?; the long black cloak - often used in a > negative context to describe Snape, which other listies have > suggested supports the theory; the "pointed purple > boots" and "lime-green bowler" sound clown-like (IMHO). > > And then his actions - in CoS, he sends Hagrid to Azkaban with no > compelling evidence, but in the beginning of PoA, he seems genuinely > concerned about Harry's safety after he runs away from the Dursley's > and also smooths over the Aunt Marge inflation incident. But then at > the end of GoF, he defends the Death Eaters that Harry names and uses > a Dementor to suck out Fake!Moody's soul so he can't give evidence to > the Ministry. > > I think the contradictions in both Fudge's manner of dress and in his > actions are a deliberate attempt on JKR's part to make us unsure of > his intentions. And I, for one, have completely fallen for it! I > think it's equally likely that Fudge is "blinded by the love of the > office he holds" and isn't accepting the fact that Voldemort is back > because it's creating "disruption in his comfortable and ordered > world" or that Fudge is actually in Voldemort's pocket. I rate the > odds at 50/50 that Fudge will turn out ever-so-evil. If Fudge were with Voldemort, he would have already been on his side before Voldemort's fall. We know that Fudge was made Minister of Magic after Crouch Jr. was caught. What if the torture of the Longbottoms was a deliberate plan to put Fudge instead of Crouch Sr. in the Minister post? It's not inconceivable that Crouch Jr. and the Lestranges got caught on purpose just so they can discredit Crouch Sr. The Lestranges were known DEs anyway, so they might as well have done something productive before going to Azkaban. This would explain why so many DEs were not caught after Voldemort's fall. Fudge could have convinced others that the Imperius defense was legitimate. Fudge could also become a candidate for Voldemort's "most loyal servant at Hogwarts" comment. --Hei Lun From ajl at hanson.net Tue Aug 20 20:49:49 2002 From: ajl at hanson.net (dembeldei) Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 20:49:49 -0000 Subject: Cornelius (was:Fudge: Ever-so-Evil or Bumbling Fool?) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42960 42936 From: eloiseherisson at a... Date: Tue Aug 20, 2002 2:51am Subject: Re: The Burrow/ Cornelius (was:Fudge: Ever-so-Evil or Bumbling Fool?) Psychchick: > > I apologise if anyone else has brought up this point - I'm still about > 50 posts behind - but I looked up the name "Cornelius" the other day, > and in Latin, it is used to mean "wise." It is time to mention that I saw a post, on a British HP site, where somebody claimed to have researched the name similarities from HP and the Arthurian legends. I had saved the post, though I no longer have the quoter's name. Perhaps someone here can verify or debuke this? Here it is: "there was a bishop named St. Cornelius who, after doing nothing spectacular with his time as pope or whatever position he held, he was replaced by St. Lucius who was a rather cruel ruler, and abused his power. However, there was someone named Arthur who was a commoner and continuously fought against Lucius, trying to get him removed from power. " The poster also mentions this: "Voldermortus was a wizard known as the dark lord that Merlin defeated using a simple spell (according to the stories). ... later on in Merlin's history, he crowned Arthur King of England, who parallels Arthur weasley in this story." I haven't had the chance yet to look up those bishops, but maybe it is time for us to verify that! Is it foreshadowing for the Ministry of Magic? Uh oh... Dembeldei From bdmorrp at budget.state.ny.us Tue Aug 20 21:18:25 2002 From: bdmorrp at budget.state.ny.us (erisedstraeh2002) Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 21:18:25 -0000 Subject: The Lexicon Has All of the US-UK Ed. Differences (WAS: Eng-to--Eng Translation) In-Reply-To: <20020820171215.10462.qmail@uwdvg020.cms.usa.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42961 I (Phyllis/erisedstraeh2002) wrote: > As I read through the UK versions, I'll let the group know whether > I've noticed any other such discrepancies. and Heidi responded: > I'm sure everyone would appreciate the gesture - I know there's a > page out there which lists all the differences, but all I was able > to find just now was a list of the changes in chapter one of book > one here: http://www.geocities.com/evelynleeper/potter.htm - it > shows just how many tiny changes there are on a few short pages. Now me again: I just did an Internet search, and found that our very own Steve, with the able assistance of Edward Olson and Grey Wolf, has already detailed all of the differences between the UK and US editions of all four of the books on the (not always infallible, but wonderful all the same) Lexicon. The sites are as follows: http://www.i2k.com/~svanderark/lexicon/differences-ss.html http://www.i2k.com/~svanderark/lexicon/differences-cs.html http://www.i2k.com/~svanderark/lexicon/differences-pa.html http://www.i2k.com/~svanderark/lexicon/differences-gf.html ~Phyllis who is still happy to have ordered the UK version of all of the books, since they have "adult editions" not offered in the US (note to Scholastic: yes, there *are* adults that read Harry Potter in the US!) From marc.nguyen at greenheck.com Tue Aug 20 21:27:27 2002 From: marc.nguyen at greenheck.com (Nguyen, Marc) Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 16:27:27 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] The Lexicon Has All of the US-UK Ed. Differen ces Message-ID: <61E2AF8C78F2D211B0B70008C7F921D50616A99E@orion2.greenops.com> No: HPFGUIDX 42962 ~Phyllis wrote: "who is still happy to have ordered the UK version of all of the books, since they have "adult editions" not offered in the US (note to Scholastic: yes, there *are* adults that read Harry Potter in the US!)" My reply: What's the difference in regular and adult editions? From bdmorrp at budget.state.ny.us Tue Aug 20 21:36:11 2002 From: bdmorrp at budget.state.ny.us (erisedstraeh2002) Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 21:36:11 -0000 Subject: Harry Wasn't Going to *Really* Kill Sirius (WAS: Digest Number 2066) In-Reply-To: <20020820185343.31338.qmail@web21104.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42963 Melody wrote: > So, how was Harry going to kill Black? and Toni responded: > I think that it was simply a scene meant to convey just how much > hate an fear and all the stuff a thirteen year old kid might feel > given the life that Harry's had. now me: I agree with Toni and others who have said that Harry was acting out of emotion in the Shrieking Shack when he had his wand poised over Sirius. I think JKR repeatedly sends a strong message in the books that it's wrong to kill, even if the person is confirmed as Ever-so- Evil (e.g., James and Lily don't try to AK Voldemort back; Harry keeps Remus and Sirius from killing Pettigrew). I think the strongest evidence that Harry wouldn't have really killed Sirius is at the end of GoF in the graveyard when Harry and Voldemort duel - Voldemort says "Avada Kedavra!" but what does Harry do? He says "Expelliarmus!" Not "Avada Kedavra" or some other killing curse. Since Harry didn't try to throw a killing curse at Voldemort, the one who murdered his parents, I strongly believe he wouldn't have thrown a killing curse at Sirius, who was believed at the time to have betrayed Harry's parents, but not to have actually killed them. Of course, if my theory is correct, does this mean that Harry won't *ever* kill Voldemort? Oooooh, I didn't mean to go there... ~Phyllis From bdmorrp at budget.state.ny.us Tue Aug 20 21:38:04 2002 From: bdmorrp at budget.state.ny.us (erisedstraeh2002) Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 21:38:04 -0000 Subject: The Lexicon Has All of the US-UK Ed. Differen ces In-Reply-To: <61E2AF8C78F2D211B0B70008C7F921D50616A99E@orion2.greenops.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42964 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Nguyen, Marc" wrote: > What's the difference in regular and adult editions? me again: I'll let you know for sure when they arrive, but I think the only difference is that they have a more adult-friendly illustration on the cover. ~Phyllis From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Tue Aug 20 21:39:13 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 21:39:13 -0000 Subject: general musings In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42965 Animagus_Raven wrote: > And on other unrelated topics: > > Regarding Sirius not wanting to apparate while in hiding: In all > mentions of Pettigrew leaving the scene of his `murder' all reference > have been to him changing into a rat and going down a sewer. (This > is related, wait until I get to it) Why does no one suspect that he > apparated? Is it because apparating is a powerful spell and would > have been detected but no such spell was detected? Therefore, if he > wasn't there (except for a finger) and he didn't apparate ? he must > be dead (since no one except the Marauders knew that he could > transform). I've defended ocasionally a theory that states that apparating, even though it's *almost* instantaneous, takes long enough that if you're dueling or otherwise in dire straits you're not able to use it. The reasoning is this: we know what sort of disasters causes multiple spells in a single subject (check Draco et co. in the train, end of GoF), and that aparition is a sepecialy delicate spell, that goes wrong even in the best circunstances. Thus, if you try to apparate when stressed or in a hurry, or when someone is shooting magics at you, you're very probably going to splinch (I'm not 100% sure this is the English name for the aparating in pieces, but you know what I mean). To this factor, I add the fact that apparition takes a few seconds, during which you're both "here" and "there" (let's say that you cannot go faster than light: you're "here" for as long as it take you to get "there"). During that time, any wizard can hit you with even the simplest spell and cause you to miss the apparition, and possibly splinch, in which case you're sold, since you cannot do a blessed thing until someone comes along to help. > On magic creating things `out of thin air'. I believe everyone has > missed a point. The house elves have to prepare all of the meals > that Dumbledore simply moves from the kitchens tables to the tables > in the hall above. If Dumbledore could create meals out of nothing > all those house elves would be out of jobs. My theory is that > powerful wizards keep stores of metals, cloth, provisions, etc. that > they can summon and shape when the need arises, thereby appearing to > create them `out of thin air.' The Hogwort's storage probably were > the source of the sleeping bags. It's always much more difficult to create a cooked meal than a lump of iron. The first requires lots of details, while the second one is the same material all over. I would agree that wizards can't create things on the spot (and in fact I believe that the sleeping bags *are* stored at Hogwarts), but the fact is that we've seen a few spells that do create things: Draco creates a snake (although it later disapears), and Snape (and IIRC, Sirius) create ropes with their wands. > Addition questions to amaze and mystify: > > 2) Who teaches Muggle Studies? How about Arthimancy? (My vote goes > to Prof. Flitwick for Arithmancy but no idea for Muggle Studies ? > Bins, perhaps ?it seems like a dry subject.) Has JKR said that we > have met all the existing professors or are there some we haven't met > yet? Arithmancy is taught by Vector, a witch. We haven't yet been told who the teacher of muggle studies is (and probably we will never be told). And we know for certain that we haven't yet met all the teachers. In the sorting ceremony of GoF, Harry tells you the teachers in one side of the table, and specifies that Dumbledore is sitting in the middle. >From there, IIRC, we can deduce that there are 14 teachers, 6 at each side of Dumbledore, plus Trelawny and Binns, who don't attend these ceremonies (Bins doesn't eat, and Trelawny almost nevers come down from her tower). However, do the math yourself. It's fun, and a good way to learn the teachers. If you don't have the time (my case right now), check the archives: the number of teachers at hogwarts is an old favourite. > 3) Could Arabella Figg be Dumbledore's girlfriend? Take that all > you Sirius girlfriend theorists. I'm voting that `old' people are > old. She could. However, I'm voting for someone the age of McGonagal, maybe an old school friend. I also think that the Polyjuice plot is getting a bit old (no pun intended), and I don't think that JKR is going to pull it out again to get Sirius a girlfriend out of thin air. At least one fellow listee (can't remember who, though) believes that Hooch and McGonagall are an item. Maybe it's not Hooch, but Figg? Nah, I don't think so. > P.S. Grey wolf: did you take your name from another series of books > in which a boy grows up to be a wizard ? excuse me ? sorcerer? (must > get the job descriptions correct) No, I devised my name myself. I love wolves, and I'm a bit of a wolf myself, and my personality tends towards the grey, so there you go: the Grey Wolf. I do enjoy the Belgariad, though (if that's the series you're refering to), and David & Leigh Eddings are my favourite fantasy writers, at least while JKR doesn't finish what she's started. Oh, and if you *are* refering to Belgaion et al, the "deadly insult" is being called magician, not wizard. Not that it really matters. > Animagus_Raven throws the invisibility cloak back on a slinks > silently off. Hope that helps, Grey Wolf From rvotaw at i-55.com Tue Aug 20 21:46:08 2002 From: rvotaw at i-55.com (Richelle Votaw) Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 16:46:08 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Various comments/ponderings/questions on Voldemort and his wand (really long!) References: Message-ID: <014301c24893$031e3960$879ccdd1@istu757> No: HPFGUIDX 42966 Grey Wolf and Eloise were the brave souls who tackled my ponderings on the life and times of Voldemort and his wand. Their responses have made me rethink a few things, and I'm combining them here. Grey Wolf writes: > There is a third possibility you haven't considered: that Hagrid took > the wand, and then told no-one for years and years because he wanted to > have a working wand (which he camouflaged in the pink umbrella). Peter > was hiding as a rat someplace nearby and saw him take it. Years later > (in PoA, when he spends some time in Hagrid's shack, he discovers where > it is, and when he flees from the shack scene, he goes for it. I don't > really believe this theory, but it's workable. Actually this had crossed my mind, but I had thrown it out before I wrote my essay last night. :) Two reasons. 1) I really can't see Hagrid keeping a secret for 10+ years. 2) I can't see Hagrid able to face Harry after Wormtail got the wand back to Voldemort. But instead they have a nice little visit. Grey Wolf again: > My own version is that Peter grabed the wand just after the explosion, > when Voldemort had turned into a pile of ash. At that point, Peter > realized that he was going to have to hide, and possibly thought of > faking his own death. The best proof in that sort of cases is leaving > behind something no wizard would ever voluntarily leave behind: his > wand. But Peter could do it because he had a spare wand: Voldemort's. > Thus, he could drop his wand and transform into a rat, safe in the > assumption that he still had *another* wand if he ever ran into > trouble. This is probably the most likely solution, whether it's the most exciting or not. Ollivander points out what a powerful wand it was, so it could come in handy. Eloise writes: > He could have had it with him then; we don't know that he didn't. Clothes and > wands, etc. transform along with the animagus, so he could have regained > human shape to hide it later. (Someone suggested a little while ago that one > of the reasons he chose to hide in Hagrid's hut was that that was the place > he had hidden Voldemort's wand.) So theoretically you could have one wand behind your back, one in your pocket, drop the one while you cut off your finger and turn into a rat and still have the one in your pocket. Interesting. Definitely handy to have two wands there. However, Wormtail didnt' have it on him in the shrieking shack did he? Or else he'd have done something? Or acted like he was going to? As for it being hidden in Hagrid's hut, that's interesting. Hagrid is always right handy to blame for such things. Very likely. Grey Wolf writes: > also possible that the potion requires particuar strength (which he > does not want to deplete by doing magics that Peter can do) or that, > like in some medical procedures, you have to be "clean" no magic during > the previous 24 hours, for example. I myself believe is more a matter > of eficiency. Ah, or perhaps Voldemort wants to be at full strength to tackle the famous Harry Potter? Just to be sure he can kill him this time. And have plenty strength to make him suffer a while first. Eloise again: > Two other possibilities: > > Phoenixes are red and gold, so possibly it has something to do with the > wands' common cores. > > More prosaically, if you mix red light and green light, you get yellow light > and there's not a lot of difference, I would venture, between yellow and gold > when we talk about a light beam. Hmm, okay, so much for color symbolism. :) Eloise: > No, I don't think so. I think it starts because Harry has *forced* the bead > of light onto Voldemort's wand tip by his sheer force of mind and magical > power. The wands were forced to duel and Harry's won. Oh, I sort of missed that. Maybe. A little. Okay, totally. Sorry, but I've reread that scene over and over trying to dissect it, but I always get so tense I miss something vital! So, it was a mental power struggle and Harry won! Cool. See, you learn something new every day. That would explain why he was pretty much fried by the time he got back to Hogwarts (everything was a blur, he was dazed, etc.). Well, that and being Crucio'd a few times. Grey Wolf writes: > (some people think it's *the* person's soul) that was killed by the AK. > This, of course, rules ut the failed AK from appearing, since it > destroyed no soul: not Harry's, who's still alive and well, nor > Voldemort's who's "soul" (or what was left of it after years of dark > magic) was forced to separate from his body and flee to Albania. But even though it destroyed no soul, it did destroy a body. I'd completely believe that it only showed things destroying a soul, except for Wormtail's hand. That didn't have anything to do with a soul, did it? Eloise writes: > Although, you know, the wand does emit screams of pain, before the shadow of > the hand appears. Perhaps that was the memory of the Cruciatus curses. > OTOH, as my own copy attests, JKR did get things wrong about this scene. > The lack of any memory of the curse that failed is odd, I agree. You know, you might be on to something there. There were screams of pain coming out of the wand first. Before Wormtail's hand. There was no pain involved with the hand being repaired. It reads as such (corrected Scholastic version): "At once, Voldemort's wand begin to emit echoing screams of pain . . . then --Voldemort's red eyes widened with shock--a dense, smoky hand flew out of the tip of it and vanished . . . the ghost of the hand he had made Wormtail." Sure, Wormtail carried on a bit after cutting it off, (like I wouldn't?!) but that had nothing to do with the wand. So the screams must have come from the Cruciatus. Harry did scream, very much, "more loudly than he'd ever screamed in his life." Which solves that problem, but there's still the missing failed AK curse. I double checked to be sure, and it goes straight from Bertha Jorkins dropping out of the wand, telling Harry "don't let him get you, don't let go" to "Another head was emerging from the tip of Voldemort's wand . . . and Harry knew when he saw it who it would be . . ." and so it goes, that being his mother, of course, since this is the corrected version. I would think it was just a mistake, except that this scene has already been corrected. I find it very unlikely that they would go to the trouble of correcting the scene and not completely correct it. Eloise (this time on my topic of using a different wand to AK baby Harry) > Not exactly far-fetched; it has its own internal logic and a deal of pathos, > but it does rest on the two unproven premises that you *can* fight the AK and > that wands *do* overheat if you get AK-happy (if that's what you're saying. > I'm afraid I missed that theory first time round). > I'm afraid these would probably invoke a yellow flag. ;-) I think the theory was (it wasn't mine, so I can't be sure) that if you AK'd too quickly too many times in a row the wand could overheat, or something. However, as you say, Riddle AK'd three at once--grandparents and his father. Only two possible solutions I can think of. 1) It's easier to AK muggles as they're doing nothing at all to fight back. As they don't even *have* a wand, so can't even try to cast an expelliarmus or whatever. 2) That Lily *did* try to resist, if only for a few seconds, and *that* would have overheated the wand, not necessarily two/three AK's in a row. As I said, it's out there. Way out there. :) Richelle From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Tue Aug 20 21:54:09 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 21:54:09 -0000 Subject: Duel Harry (WAS: Harry Wasn't Going to *Really* Kill Sirius) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42967 Phyllis wrote: > I agree with Toni and others who have said that Harry was acting out > of emotion in the Shrieking Shack when he had his wand poised over > Sirius. I think JKR repeatedly sends a strong message in the books > that it's wrong to kill, even if the person is confirmed as Ever-so- > Evil (e.g., James and Lily don't try to AK Voldemort back; Harry > keeps Remus and Sirius from killing Pettigrew). I think the > strongest evidence that Harry wouldn't have really killed Sirius is > at the end of GoF in the graveyard when Harry and Voldemort duel - > Voldemort says "Avada Kedavra!" but what does Harry do? He > says "Expelliarmus!" Not "Avada Kedavra" or some other killing > curse. Since Harry didn't try to throw a killing curse at Voldemort, > the one who murdered his parents, I strongly believe he wouldn't have > thrown a killing curse at Sirius, who was believed at the time to > have betrayed Harry's parents, but not to have actually killed them. > > ~Phyllis I have to point out, Phyllis, that Harry used Expelliarmus because it's the *only* duel spell he knows. He does *not* know how to cast an AK: check what Crouch!Moody tells them in the unforgivables class that they haven't enough power to cast an AK, but that even if they had it would be beside the point because he was *not* going to teach them how to cast it. My favourite theory, MAGIC DISWASHER (in case you haven't noticed by now, this theory answers many of the questions. That's one of the reason I like it so much), bases it's second part (the graveyard showdown) in the fact that Voldemort is not a stupid evil overlord, but a careful planer: he gives a wand to Harry because Harry's more powerful *without* a wand (check post 40044 for the complete theory, or just go down to the "Harry is more powerful without a wand" section). When he's got a wand in his hand, the only spell he knows that is useful in that situation is Expelliarmus (and it's not particularly useful, either), while without it the espontaneous magic could have saved him. I don't like that sort of metathinking discussions about what JKR wants to tell us with the books, so I do think that Harry *is* going to kill Voldemort. Of course, I'm giving it 50/50 to the possibility that Harry dies in the process, too. And 80% to the fact that Ron dies to allow victory, just like he did in the chess match in PS (my first acronymed theory: RICK'S THS BOSS). Hope that helps, Grey Wolf From psychic_serpent at yahoo.com Tue Aug 20 21:59:32 2002 From: psychic_serpent at yahoo.com (Barb P) Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 14:59:32 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: "yard" / Muggle money / "Ottery" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020820215932.37078.qmail@web13001.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 42968 a) Molly wouldn't have withdrawn dollars from Gringotts. She would have withdrawn wizarding money, which could then be exchanged for pounds. b) It's possible that JKR thinks taxicabs are incredibly cheap (or she doesn't know the difference between expensive and cheap these days--although Chamber of Secrets was only the second book). Or it's possible that you have been to England and think that the taxicabs there are very pricey. (A $500 ride would be around 340 pounds and about 68 Galleons.) In the US, taxicab fares differ widely from city to city. c) It's also possible that, despite the name of Ottery St. Catchpole, JKR's geography is either faulty or merely fictional (I could go with either one) and she is placing the village not in Devon, but close enough to London for a taxicab ride to be affordable to the Weasleys. This might be why they didn't get the train. (Or perhaps their village isn't on a train line. That would fit with its being off the beaten path.) Where did someone get the 500 pound or dollar figure for the fare? d) It's also possible that one reason why there was so little money in the Weasley vault is that they had already set the money for the taxicab aside, and what Harry saw was what was left after that. e) OR--since Hogwarts provides free transportion to the school by train, perhaps they also provide free transportaion to King's Cross for all students. The only problem with this idea is that Harry needed to ask Vernon to take him to London; if transportation were free and readily available, you'd think he needn't have bothered or would have received instructions about how to get some version of the Knight Bus to take him. f) It still doesn't make any sense for the Ministry to provide the cash, however, just based on the idea that they want to protect Harry. They didn't lift a finger to get him to King's Cross his first year, did they? If Vernon hadn't taken him, Harry would have had some difficulty. g) I'm not sure why you feel the need to speculate on the goblins having a bank account in the Muggle world. The last thing they would want to do is deal with Muggles ever, IMO. It seems pretty clear that they exchange currency themselves, in that the Grangers acquired Galleons for pounds at Gringotts. It doesn't make sense for the goblins not to be the ones in charge of the money; it gives them a degree of power, and if they relied upon someone else to exchange currency for them, they'd be the ones paying the fees. --Barb http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Psychic_Serpent http://www.schnoogle.com/authorLinks/Barb bboy_mn wrote: --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Barb P wrote: ......MADSO..... (Monstrous Amount of Data Snipped Out) .... > > I think that when Molly made a shopping trip to Diagon Alley, she simply stopped in the bank to exchange some wizarding money for Muggle money. There's no reason to turn this into a big mystery. Yes, Arthur stares at the "bits of paper" during GoF, wondering how anyone could think they're money. But he doesn't just toss a fifty-pound note at Roberts and tell him to keep the change, does he? It's still money, and he does know that, as much as his basic instincts fight against it. > > --Barb > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Psychic_Serpent > http://www.schnoogle.com/authorLinks/Barb Above statement is related to the discussion of how Molly Weasley paid for the 3 taxis used to take everyone to London. I seriouly doubt that someone as desperate for money as Molly, went to the bank and withdrew $500 to pay for a taxi ride. When Harry accompanied her to the Weasley vault; there was nothing but a few Sickles and a couple of Galleons. These are not the kind of people who had $500 laying around to spend on a cab ride. Remember this is three taxis taken on a +200 mile taxi ride. I would think Arthur could have bought another used Ford Anglia for that much money, so I seriously doubt that taxi ride was paid for with Weasley money. Also, note that if Molly, Bill, and Charlie could drive a muggle car, they could have rented three cars or a car and small truck for less than the taxi ride. What really baffles me, is why they didn't take the train? I haven't been to England, but in Germany, you can take the train from anywhere to anywhere, even to and from the smallest village. Trains make more stops but when they are moving, they are moving fast, and rarely get hung up in heavy traffic. My vote is for the Ministry to have provided the cash. They seem to feel an obligation to safeguard Harry. I don't think Mr. Weasley would have gotten top box/VIP box tickets if Harry hadn't been with them. Ron, did say his dad can usually get tickets from work, but I really doubt he would have gotten top box tickets. I have no doubt that there is a certain amount of muggle money in the wizards world, and what does get collected is exchanged at the bank for wizards money, and this gives the bank a supply of muggle money. I'm sure there are occassions when wizards come to the bank and need muggle money so they can buy things in London. I also believe that the goblins have some way of transferring money between the wizard world and the magic world, maybe a bank account at some large bank that they use to pull muggle money into and send money out of the wizards bank. bboy_mn --------------------------------- Do You Yahoo!? HotJobs, a Yahoo! service - Search Thousands of New Jobs [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From nplyon at yahoo.com Tue Aug 20 22:16:27 2002 From: nplyon at yahoo.com (Nicole L.) Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 15:16:27 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Sneakoscopes and Gred and Forge/Arabella Figg In-Reply-To: <1029866777.1673.52057.m12@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <20020820221627.96368.qmail@web20907.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 42969 > Animagus_Raven throws off the invisibility cloak and > shouts "Ahh, > Haaaa" > looks confused and somewhat embarrassed > "Sorry, I though you were professors Snape and > Quirrel in an animated > conversation." Can I just say that I truly enjoyed this grand entrance? Not only are you an animagus, you have an invisibility cloak. Brilliant! :) Animagus_Raven went on to say: > > Notice that there is no `up to no good' on the > clock. Fred and > George's hands would probably be parked there > permanently. That > setting was probably removed. On a related topic, I > wonder how fast > a Sneakoscope would last around Fred and George? It > would probably > burn itself up rather quickly. Wasn't Harry's Sneakoscope around Gred and Forge? I believe that it was an, as far as I know, it only went off when Scabbers!Pettigrew was around. This does bring up an interesting question. Could it be that the Sneakoscope only detects people who are not trustworthy in the malicious sense? By this I mean that it wouldn't detect harmless tricksters, but would detect people who want to do actual harm to the owner. While Gred and Forge do have a very wicked sense of humor and have been known to do things that aren't all that nice, they have proven themselves worthy of Harry's trust. Anyway, I love Gred and Forge. They may very well be my favorite characters. I know there are listees out there who think that their pranks get a little over the top but IMHO they are relatively harmless. Especially when I compare them to the stories that my husband tells me of him and his friends at that age. They were throwing illegal fireworks at one another and making flaming waterfalls (pouring gasoline out of a container and lighting the stream of gas with a match). And this from a man who turned out to be an accountant for a large corporation! Give me Gred and Forge any day. Animagus_Raven then posed the following question: > 3) Could Arabella Figg be Dumbledore's girlfriend? > Take that all > you Sirius girlfriend theorists. I'm voting that > `old' people are > old. Okay, now is the time for me to say the thing that's been nagging at the back of my mind throughout the whole Arabella Figg thread. In GoF, when Dumbledore asks Sirius to round up the "Old Crowd", doesn't he refer to her as "Arabella Figg"? If she truly were Sirius's girlfriend, wouldn't it have been more natural for him to refer to her as "Arabella"? It just seems strange to me that Dumbledore would need to refer to her by her first and last name. Anyway, I really don't like the whole Polyjuiced!Arabella theory. I think that she is an old woman. Really, it's extraordinary enough that she's been living as a Muggle old woman all this time on Privet Drive without Harry's knowing she is actually a witch. I don't think that it's necessary for there to be anything more to it than that. ~Nicole, who was very puzzled to see a Yahoo! Group devoted to fans of Legolas from LOTR and Draco Malfoy. What a weird combination! __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? HotJobs - Search Thousands of New Jobs http://www.hotjobs.com From nicola_six at hotmail.com Tue Aug 20 20:42:53 2002 From: nicola_six at hotmail.com (nicolasixisme) Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 20:42:53 -0000 Subject: Possible Lestrange Inspiration? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42970 Hello all. Since JKR takes inspiration from so many quarters, I wonder if there isn't a connection between the Lestranges and the central character of Gladys Mitchell's novels. The character is a curiously amoral witch named Beatrice Adela Lestrange Bradley: 'To her, murder is neither a crime nor a sin, but "a general heading for a whole list of actions, most of which ought to be judged merely as misdemeanours. The second division ought to be the special preserve of murderers"[14]. She recognises that every single human being is a potential murderer, "some in deed and some in thought", the only difference being that "some have the courage of their convictions" while "others have not"[15].' (From an article about the character, the full text of which can be found at http://www.geocities.com/hacklehorn/mitchell/bradley.htm). We know so little about the Lestranges that it's probably a bit of a stretch, but I found the coincidence tantalizing enough to mull over it as a possible bit of HP scholastic trivia. -Nicola From hunibuni22 at webtv.net Tue Aug 20 21:48:36 2002 From: hunibuni22 at webtv.net (hunibuni22 at webtv.net) Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 17:48:36 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] "yard" / "Ottery" In-Reply-To: "hp_lexicon" 's message of Tue, 20 Aug 2002 14:44:07 -0000 Message-ID: <20067-3D62B934-1890@storefull-2158.public.lawson.webtv.net> No: HPFGUIDX 42971 I never really thought of whether the Weasley's lived in a muggle town or not, until now... Wouldn't the muggles certainly consider the shape and height of their house, just plain odd? (CoS) "Several stories high and so crooked it looked like it was held up by magic... four or five chimneas perched ontop of the red roof... out front lay a jumble of boots and a very rusty caldron...". Also, if the Weasley's were afraid that townsfolk might see them flying on broomsticks, wouldn't they be a little worried about the flying tables that Bill and Charlie were banging against each other (GoF, I think)? Not that I am disagreeing with you, just some fuel for the fire, I suppose! Tara, hoping that this posts correctly as I've been having some problems. From jenw118 at HotPOP.com Tue Aug 20 21:48:26 2002 From: jenw118 at HotPOP.com (Jennifer R. Wilson) Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 16:48:26 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] The Lexicon Has All of the US-UK Ed. Differences References: <61E2AF8C78F2D211B0B70008C7F921D50616A99E@orion2.greenops.com> Message-ID: <001701c24893$580af260$64c5fbd8@oemcomputer> No: HPFGUIDX 42972 \ ~Phyllis wrote: "who is still happy to have ordered the UK version of all of the books, since they have "adult editions" not offered in the US (note to Scholastic: yes, there *are* adults that read Harry Potter in the US!)" Marc's response to Phyllis: >>What's the difference in regular and adult editions? ~~My answer~~ From what I know about the adult books, which is not too much being a Texan(haha!) is that they are mainly different in cover styles. They are made so that an adult can read the HP books in public without people thinking it is a children's book. There is one difference in a book. Can anyone who has the books help with this? Basically the only real difference is the more mature looking covers. Hope I helped you. Jennifer [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From rvotaw at i-55.com Tue Aug 20 22:56:00 2002 From: rvotaw at i-55.com (Richelle Votaw) Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 17:56:00 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Duel Harry (WAS: Harry Wasn't Going to *Really* Kill Sirius) References: Message-ID: <000c01c2489c$c13577c0$76a0cdd1@istu757> No: HPFGUIDX 42973 Grey Wolf raises a most interesting point: > My favourite theory, MAGIC DISWASHER (in case you haven't noticed by > now, this theory answers many of the questions. That's one of the > reason I like it so much), bases it's second part (the graveyard > showdown) in the fact that Voldemort is not a stupid evil overlord, but > a careful planer: he gives a wand to Harry because Harry's more > powerful *without* a wand (check post 40044 for the complete theory, or > just go down to the "Harry is more powerful without a wand" section). > When he's got a wand in his hand, the only spell he knows that is > useful in that situation is Expelliarmus (and it's not particularly > useful, either), while without it the espontaneous magic could have > saved him. This is good. Really good. Voldemort then is not being the least bit "noble" as his death eater's believe, by giving Harry his wand. Instead, he is trapping Harry so that he will only use spells that he knows. Voldemort could very well have known about many things Harry did without a wand, thanks to Wormtail. I'm sure Harry has told Ron other things we don't know of, besides the blowing up his aunt bit, easily overheard by Wormtail as Scabbers. Therefore Harry is being backed into a corner, in which he wouldn't even think to drop the wand and just be spontaneous. If he could once he thought of it even. We know for certain that Harry has done through spontaneous non-wand directed magic a number of pretty impressive things: 1) Apparated (or something similar) to the roof of the school kitchen 2) Turned his teacher's hair blue 3) Grew his own hair back overnight 4) Removed the glass from the window of the snake tank 5) Blew his aunt up Anything else I'm forgetting? Anyway, had Harry not had his wand when facing Voldemort, he may in fact have had such a raging hatred toward him that Voldemort would simply have . . . blown up or something. Grey Wolf again: > I don't like that sort of metathinking discussions about what JKR wants > to tell us with the books, so I do think that Harry *is* going to kill > Voldemort. Of course, I'm giving it 50/50 to the possibility that Harry > dies in the process, too. And 80% to the fact that Ron dies to allow > victory, just like he did in the chess match in PS (my first acronymed > theory: RICK'S THS BOSS). I'm with you there. Especially on the Ron thing and maybe but hopefully not Harry dying in the process. However, I think it's likely Harry kills Voldemort but either not with magic or not with wand directed magic. Something JKR said in an interview once . . . they were asking her if she were a Christian and believed in God. She said yes. They then asked if she believed in magic. She responded "Magic in the sense in which it happens in my books, no, I don't believe. I don't believe in that. No. No. This is so frustrating. Again, there is so much I would like to say, and come back when I've written book seven. But then maybe you won't need to even say it 'cause you'll have found it out anyway. You'll have read it." I find that interesting, it somehow implies that magic won't be the answer. Not magic in the sense of all Harry's training. At least that's how I read it. Richelle From bdmorrp at budget.state.ny.us Wed Aug 21 00:04:09 2002 From: bdmorrp at budget.state.ny.us (erisedstraeh2002) Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 00:04:09 -0000 Subject: Duel Harry (WAS: Harry Wasn't Going to *Really* Kill Sirius) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42974 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "grey_wolf_c" wrote: > I have to point out, Phyllis, that Harry used Expelliarmus because > it's the *only* duel spell he knows. He does *not* know how to cast > an AK: check what Crouch!Moody tells them in the unforgivables > class that they haven't enough power to cast an AK, but that even > if they had it would be beside the point because he was *not* going > to teach them how to cast it. now me: OK, Grey Wolf, I'll give you that. But, even if Harry didn't know how to throw an AK, he certainly *does* know plenty of other spells that would be more damaging to Voldemort than "Expelliarmus" (such as "Impedimenta" or "Stupefy"). And, in a life threatening situation, with his adrenaline going, who's to say he couldn't pull off an AK? He's able to produce a patronus which is "highly advanced magic" that even experienced wizards have trouble with (I know what you're going to say - Lupin taught him how to do it, OK, OK, I give up...). Grey Wolf continues his assault on my post : > Voldemort is not a stupid evil overlord, but a careful planner: he > gives a wand to Harry because Harry's more powerful *without* a > wand Me again: Here I *really* disagree with you, based on an interview in which JKR said that you can do unfocused magic without a wand, but to do focused magic you need a wand. I just can't see how *unfocused* magic can be more powerful than *focused* magic. Grey Wolf again: > I do think that Harry *is* going to kill Voldemort. Of course, I'm > giving it 50/50 to the possibility that Harry dies in the > process Me again: I think Voldemort will be vanquished in Book 7, and I think Harry will bring it about, but I'm not convinced that Harry will become a murderer in Book 7. I'm also extremely hopeful that Harry does not die in the process, but can accept it if it happens (but please don't kill him Jo, please!). ~Phyllis From Malady579 at hotmail.com Tue Aug 20 23:38:11 2002 From: Malady579 at hotmail.com (malady579) Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 23:38:11 -0000 Subject: Duel Harry In-Reply-To: <000c01c2489c$c13577c0$76a0cdd1@istu757> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42975 > > because Harry's more powerful *without* a wand < < Has anyone else in the books done "magic" without a wand? Neville has bounced out a window without a wand when he was about to die from the fall. That is the only one I can remember right off hand. It seems this "power" is a primal magic that cannot be learned but stems from raw emotions or fear. Harry's incidences have stem from embarassment (sweater, hair), fear for his own safety (school roof), pride for his parents (breaking Marge's wine glass and inflating her), or annoyance (glass in zoo). Every other magic incidence has come from wands, hasn't it? Even Dumbledore always uses a wand. Also each of these events have complimented the problem at hand. Nothing too outrageous but definately not normal. Hey I wonder if Lily used one of these non-wand magic events to invoke the "love" or was it purely her sacrifice death alone. Deep magic just is and can not be invoked. Sorry, kind of talked a long path there. Hope it is easy to follow. Anyway, I am trying to catch up in reading the previous posts so sorry if ya'll have ironed these things out before. Melody From bard7696 at aol.com Wed Aug 21 02:38:10 2002 From: bard7696 at aol.com (darrin_burnett) Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 02:38:10 -0000 Subject: Duel Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42976 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "malady579" wrote: > > > because Harry's more powerful *without* a wand < < > > > Has anyone else in the books done "magic" without a wand? A couple of times snap to mind. I'll try to avoid the-film-that-I'm- not-afraid-to-name-poisoning. (I like the film, but really hate that "Quirrell snaps his fingers and flames come out" scene.) * Dumbledore claps his hands and changes the Slytherin banners to Gryffindor. * Quirrell and Snape with the dueling curses when Harry is in the Quidditch match. That seemed to be done without wands. > Neville has bounced out a window without a wand when he was about to > die from the fall. That is the only one I can remember right off > hand. It seems this "power" is a primal magic that cannot be learned > but stems from raw emotions or fear. I am not sure what we can take from Sirius' reaction to Harry's threat to kill him. The "going to kill me, Harry?" reads to me almost patronizing, like he believes Harry can't really damage him. But that's one opinion. It can be read in other ways as well, for instance, that Sirius has a near-death wish and is almost resigned to his fate. Whatever it is, I certainly don't read fear in that line. But I still wonder... we are talking about a boy who basically apparated to get away from bullies, regrew hair to avoid embarrassment, conjured up a Patronus advanced wizards couldn't do, etc., etc. etc... Harry has proven in the past that he can augment his magical ability with his desires. Maybe all young wizards can and that is something that is traded away as they learn control. I still hold on to the belief that Harry might have been able to badly damage Sirius, even without knowing AK. Darrin -- Fresh from my sabbatical on the NYPD Blue board. It'll be a tough season, doing HP, Blue, Fantasy Football, and the St. Louis Rams, but I'll be sure to step up. From bard7696 at aol.com Wed Aug 21 03:01:04 2002 From: bard7696 at aol.com (darrin_burnett) Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 03:01:04 -0000 Subject: Why Does Lucius Still Have Influence After the Diary!Riddle Incident? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42977 Greg wrote; > Plus, as of right now we don't really know > what it is that Lucius does. He could be providing some vital > service to the wizards on that committee that he could threaten to > with hold if he didn't get his way. > > Greg Well, we know one thing he does, and I don't think this has been brought up in this thread. He donates money. At the beginning of GoF, Fudge is talking about how Lucius just donated for a children's wing or some such. Whether it's dollars, deutschmarks, yen, pounds, or galleons, money smooths over a lot of sins. Darrin -- I'd sin a lot more if I had more money From ajl at hanson.net Wed Aug 21 03:25:44 2002 From: ajl at hanson.net (dembeldei) Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 03:25:44 -0000 Subject: Duel Harry Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42978 From: Richelle Votaw "We know for certain that Harry has done through spontaneous non-wand directed magic a number of pretty impressive things: 1) Apparated (or something similar) to the roof of the school kitchen 2) Turned his teacher's hair blue 3) Grew his own hair back overnight 4) Removed the glass from the window of the snake tank 5) Blew his aunt up Anything else I'm forgetting? " Yes, he rapidly shrank Dudley's hideous orange pom pom brown sweater so that it wouldn't fit over his head, and was relieved that Petunia didn't catch on. Dembeldei From elfundeb at comcast.net Tue Aug 20 15:49:44 2002 From: elfundeb at comcast.net (elfundeb) Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 11:49:44 -0400 Subject: Why Does Lucius Still Have Influence After the Diary!Riddle Incident?] References: Message-ID: <00cf01c24861$3494f4c0$3a3b3244@arlngt01.va.comcast.net> No: HPFGUIDX 42979 Gwen said: I absolutely don't believe that the truth about the diary went public. Assuredly Dumbledore, Harry, Hermione, all the Weasleys, and the governors found out, but I believe that's all. Sometimes with important and influential people, rather than actually firing the person, the board "asks for a resignation," and therefore there's an appearance of less turbulent change than there really is. ********** I agree with Gwen, except for the suggestion that the Board of Governors knows about the diary. Dumbledore says that several of the other Board members told him that Lucius threatened to curse their families if they didn't agree to Dumbledore's suspension. I think that's cause enough for the other governors to ask for Lucius' resignation. The Board of Governors would not have known about the diary unless Dumbledore told them, and I don't think it's his modus operandi to actively engineer Lucius' removal from the Board. In fact, when Lucius dares Harry to prove that Lucius gave Ginny the diary, Dumbledore jumps in to state that "no one will be able to do that." So I think the secret does not go beyond Harry, Dumbledore and Dobby. I'm not even certain Hermione or the Weasleys were told. I also have a theory (which I'll recycle here because it would be another reason why Dumbledore would not tell the Board about the diary) under which it doesn't matter anyway who is on the Board of Governors, because neither the MOM nor the Board of Governors really controls Hogwarts. Notwithstanding Fudge's implicit threat in GoF ("The Parting of the Ways") to sack Dumbledore ("I will be in touch with you tomorrow, Dumbledore, to discuss the running of this school."), I just don't believe the Founders, after putting their own brains in the Sorting Hat, would have set up a Board of Governors under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Magic to oversee the running of the school. I think the MOM asserted jurisdiction at some later time. However, the *real* Board of Governors, in my theory, continues to be the Sorting Hat itself, assisted by Fawkes. If the Sorting Hat chose Dumbledore as Headmaster, the Board can try to sack Dumbledore, as it did in CoS, but Dumbledore will remain the true headmaster. As he says, "I will only truly have left this school when none here are loyal to me." Debbie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Malady579 at hotmail.com Wed Aug 21 00:49:46 2002 From: Malady579 at hotmail.com (malady579) Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 00:49:46 -0000 Subject: Duel Harry II with a side of Moody/Crouch In-Reply-To: <000c01c2489c$c13577c0$76a0cdd1@istu757> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42980 Grey Wolf wrote: > Voldemort gives a wand to Harry because Harry's more powerful *without* a wand (check post 40044 for the complete theory, or just go down to the "Harry is more powerful without a wand" section). << Now me: No, he gave Harry his wand because that is what you do in a duel. Both opponents choose thier weapons and turn and face each other. Duels have always been around to "show" the more manily of man. Think rams butting heads or snakes wrestling...it is purely a showdown for the strongest to win. Usually it the winner gets to mate but that is beside the point here in Hogwarts-land. Voldemort believes and feels he has the upper hand and likes playing with his food. What better way than to "follow the rules" of proper etiquette and duel like "civilized" gentlemen/gentlewizards. He is being civilrous and ironic with literature lovers love. It gives the bad guy a sense of elegance. In our muggle world we use pistols and swords; thiers are wands. It is, as Voldemort said, what Dumbledore wanted, right? Voldemort thought he had Potter caged where he wanted him and forgot about all the possibilites as he did before in the chamber as Riddle. Excitement can cloud the mind, so can the carnal lust to be right. You know, the etiquette part is what made Crouch/Moody so scary. Crouch/Moody never lied once in GoF. Never once. He obeyed all the rules and still managed to be evil undetected. Had to unnerve Dumbledore a bit. GoF is scarier the second read when you can follow Crouch/Moody's charater as see he in a way was always the Brilliant Bary Crouch Jr. in Moody's sheepskin. Melody From corgi at SFF.net Wed Aug 21 05:57:09 2002 From: corgi at SFF.net (sffcorgi) Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 05:57:09 -0000 Subject: The Lexicon Has All of the US-UK Ed. Differen ces In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42981 --- Phyllis wrote: >> What's the difference in regular and adult editions? > > I'll let you know for sure when they arrive, but I think the only > difference is that they have a more adult-friendly illustration on > the cover. I've had them for a while, and without having made a LOON-like obessive-compulsive comparison , I think the B&W-photo-art covered 'grown-up' paperbacks are just missing one illustration from the 'kid' editions. Corgi @sff.net From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Wed Aug 21 06:38:15 2002 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (bboy_mn) Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 06:38:15 -0000 Subject: "yard" / "Ottery" In-Reply-To: <20067-3D62B934-1890@storefull-2158.public.lawson.webtv.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42982 TARA Wrote: --- In HPforGrownups at y..., hunibuni22 at w... wrote: > I never really thought of whether the Weasley's lived in a > muggle town or not, until now... > > Wouldn't the muggles certainly consider the shape and height of > their house, just plain odd? (CoS) "Several stories high and so > crooked it looked like it was held up by magic... four or five > chimneas perched ontop of the red roof... out front lay a jumble > of boots and a very rusty caldron...". Also, if the Weasley's were > afraid that townsfolk might see them flying on broomsticks, > wouldn't they be a little worried about the flying tables that Bill > and Charlie were banging against each other (GoF, I think)? > > Not that I am disagreeing with you, just some fuel for the fire, I > suppose! > > Tara, hoping that this posts correctly as I've been having some > problems. BBoy_mn, who has nothing better to do this late at night, RESPONDS: The Weasley's live on a farm, and Mr. Weasley seems to own a reasonably nice sized piece of land by what I assume are English standards. There is the farmhouse, a large yard/garden, a grove of trees that are across a small field and a small pond. So, I assume that since they keep to themselves and are hardly known by anyone in the village (although probably recognized by the villages, they certainly don't associate much). I also assume that by trees or hills or enchantments there house is blocked from view. They could live down a long dirt road that doesn't go anywhere accept to their place. The point is, they can be within walking distance of the village and still be somewhat visually isolated from it. This also explains why no one sees the flying tables. When the boys fly their broom the go across the field to the grove of trees that has a clearing in the middle. That's where they play/practice Quidditch, but they have to be very carefull NOT to fly about the treetop or the muggles will see them. Usually, Quidditch practice consists of throwing apples at each other. So, this is my view; they have a nice plot of land, that is on a small dirt road by itself, it's hidden by trees and/or other natural features, and there are basic enchantments like apathy charms that work only on muggles. Here's something I wonder about. At some point in the last 25 years, some of the Weasley kids must have wandered into town, just for an adventure if nothing else; kids are curious. So while their house/farm may have apathy charms, their kids probably didn't (although they could have; nice way to get hit by a car though). So the town's people must have been aware that the Weasley's existed. You would think some of the town busy bodies would have wondered why their kids were never in school. If there were a pack of kids like that here in the US, it wouldn't take Social Services/Child Welfare long to stick their nose in. That's my story and I'm sticking to it. bboy_mn From eloiseherisson at aol.com Wed Aug 21 06:54:10 2002 From: eloiseherisson at aol.com (eloiseherisson at aol.com) Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 02:54:10 EDT Subject: Missing wands (was:Re: Various comments/ponderings/questions on Voldemort an... Message-ID: <45.1c0f9810.2a949312@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 42983 Richelle: > Eloise writes: [re Voldemort's wand] > > > He could have had it with him then; we don't know that he didn't. Clothes > and > > wands, etc. transform along with the animagus, so he could have regained > > human shape to hide it later. (Someone suggested a little while ago that > one > > of the reasons he chose to hide in Hagrid's hut was that that was the > place > > he had hidden Voldemort's wand.) > > So theoretically you could have one wand behind your back, one in your > pocket, drop the one while you cut off your finger and turn into a rat and > still have the one in your pocket. Interesting. Definitely handy to have > two wands there. However, Wormtail didnt' have it on him in the shrieking > shack did he? Or else he'd have done something? Or acted like he was > going > to? As for it being hidden in Hagrid's hut, that's interesting. Hagrid is > always right handy to blame for such things. Very likely. > Aah, now....funnily enough you've hit on exactly what started the 'Cornelius Fudge is Ever-So-Evil' thread. No, Wormtail *didn't* have a wand on him and that, IMHO is extremely suspicious. If he did rescue Voldemort's, then he must have hidden it. But why doesn't he have his own? Would you really, in those circumstances, risk not taking your wand with you? (I see no reason why you shouldn't have *two* wands transform along with you.) I theorised that Wormtail was in league with someone at the MOM. He *did* leave his wand at the scene, but it was substituted for Sirius', so that in the official report, it was assumed destroyed along with Pettigrew. Thus there was cast-iron proof that Sirius was guilty, for he was in possession of the guilty wand. Sirius' own wand was diposed of. You see, there's yet another wand problem: if Sirius' wand existed, it could have been PI'd to demonstrate his innocence. Sirius doesn't *ever* seem to have tried to prove himself innocent. OK, at first he was racked with guilt, but later, we hear that he survives in Azkaban because of his unhappy thoughts about his innocence. I speculated that his unhappy acceptance of his situation was because he knew he'd been framed and that there was nothing he could do about it. I won't expand further here; I originally wrote it up in greater detail somewhere in the middle of message no 35393. Eloise [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Wed Aug 21 08:20:46 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 08:20:46 -0000 Subject: Duel Harry (WAS: Harry Wasn't Going to *Really* Kill Sirius) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42984 Phyllis wrote: > I wrote wrote: > > > I have to point out, Phyllis, that Harry used Expelliarmus because > > it's the *only* duel spell he knows. He does *not* know how to cast > > an AK: check what Crouch!Moody tells them in the unforgivables > > class that they haven't enough power to cast an AK, but that even > > if they had it would be beside the point because he was *not* going > > to teach them how to cast it. > > now Phyllis: > > OK, Grey Wolf, I'll give you that. But, even if Harry didn't know > how to throw an AK, he certainly *does* know plenty of other spells > that would be more damaging to Voldemort than "Expelliarmus" (such > as "Impedimenta" or "Stupefy"). And, in a life threatening > situation, with his adrenaline going, who's to say he couldn't pull > off an AK? He's able to produce a patronus which is "highly advanced > magic" that even experienced wizards have trouble with (I know what > you're going to say - Lupin taught him how to do it, OK, OK, I give > up...). > > Grey Wolf continues his assault on Phyllis post : > > > Voldemort is not a stupid evil overlord, but a careful planner: he > > gives a wand to Harry because Harry's more powerful *without* a > > wand > > Phyllis again: > > Here I *really* disagree with you, based on an interview in which JKR > said that you can do unfocused magic without a wand, but to do > focused magic you need a wand. I just can't see how *unfocused* > magic can be more powerful than *focused* magic. > > ~Phyllis Two words: Win-GAR-dium Le-vi-O-sa. Focused magic spells require a very careful pronunciation of the words, and a very careful flick of the wrists. To be able to cast a spell, you have to know both, or the results will probably cause you more harm than good. Notice too that, even if Harry had trained to recognize the pronunciation, which he hasn't, the wrist movement must be almost invisible (since they're never commented upon). Harry *cannot* inmediately copy a spell he has just seen. It always takes him hours (sometimes days) of practice to get the spells right, and he needs someone to teach him. Hermione seems to know the theory weel enough to learn a spell on her own (from explicit instructions in a book), but Harry needs a teacher. Needless to say, Harry hasn't got hours or a teacher in the graveyard. On the other hand, unfocused magic comes naturally at Harry, and always works when he's in a desperate situation, but unable to use focused magic to get out of it (before going to Hogwarts, because he didn't know magic existed, afterwards, because the Durleys stop him from using his wand). Please note that I *DIDN'T* say that unfocused magic is more powerful, I only said the *HARRY* is more powerful without without a wand. When he has finished his training, he will be more powerful with a wand, surely, but until then, the unfocused magic is what he really excells at. To quote Pip, the creator of this theory: Voldemort is like someone facing a duel with the Olympic Fencing Champion. Who then says "I choose the weapons. Pistols, please. (please read post 40044 for the full theory). The trouble is that unfocused magic does not work when the wizard is thinking in focused magic (i.e. when he has a wand is his hand and is planning from the spells he knows). I agree that he could probably have tried to use a spell other than Expelliarmus from the ones he learnt for the maze task, but unfortunately Harry demonstrates once again that he's very much unprepared for adult wizard fights. Harry specifies that *the only duel spell he knows is expelliarmus*. He obvioulsy doesn't think that other spells are useful in a wizard duel. Whether this is true or not is beside the point: Harry will do what he believes, not what is true. Speaking of this, I would like to point out that Expelliarmus wasn't that bad choice. It's a reverse spell: if it works, it gives you the advantage and a free spell, efectivelly reversing the course of the fight. Harry was on the defensive there, and by expelliarming Voldemort, he could start going on the offensive. It wouldn't have worked, of course, since Voldemort is a much better duelist than he is, so the AK was already on its way, but it wasn't a bad plan for someone who really knows nothing of dueling. In fact, the biggest error Harry does is not the Expelliarmus, is *getting up*. He had the advantage of defensive terrain,and he should have kept it: to dodge spells by using gravestones as protection, and look for a way out could have saved him. Hope that helps, Grey Wolf From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Wed Aug 21 08:54:47 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 08:54:47 -0000 Subject: Duel Harry II In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42985 Melody wrote: > Grey Wolf wrote: > > > Voldemort gives a wand to Harry because Harry's more powerful > *without* a wand (check post 40044 for the complete theory, or just > go down to the "Harry is more powerful without a wand" section). << > > Now me: > > No, he gave Harry his wand because that is what you do in a duel. > Both opponents choose thier weapons and turn and face each other. > Duels have always been around to "show" the more manily of man. > Think rams butting heads or snakes wrestling...it is purely a > showdown for the strongest to win. Usually it the winner gets to > mate but that is beside the point here in Hogwarts-land. Voldemort > believes and feels he has the upper hand and likes playing with his > food. What better way than to "follow the rules" of proper etiquette > and duel like "civilized" gentlemen/gentlewizards. He is being > civilrous and ironic with literature lovers love. It gives the bad > guy a sense of elegance. In our muggle world we use pistols and > swords; thiers are wands. It is, as Voldemort said, what Dumbledore > wanted, right? > > Voldemort thought he had Potter caged where he wanted him and forgot > about all the possibilites as he did before in the chamber as Riddle. > Excitement can cloud the mind, so can the carnal lust to be right. > > Melody That is your opinion, and as such I respect it, but it doesn't really fit with the Modus Operandi we've seen so far from Voldemort. You're basically painting him as someone who lets his feelings out of control and that allows hatred and excitement control his actions. Voldemort, IMO, is nothing like that. He's evil, he's cold and he's cruel only when in a safe position. Someone who allows his enemies a wand to face him wouldn't have lasted as much as Voldemort has, and would NOT have terrorised an entire country. The second or third time he had faced an auror he would've died. Voldemort does *not* face his enemies fair and square. When he hears about an auror getting close, he sends a DE to AK the auror's family. He also AKs people who are not pure blooded for publicity reasons. That sort of deliberate cruelty is very difficult to mantain if you haven't got nerves of steel and a heart of ice. No, Voldemort so far has never gone for irony, ettiquete or civilized manner. What he wants, he takes, and always tries to play with marked cards and an a few ones in his pockets just in case. Someone who's planning immortality doesn't take unnecesary risks. The graveyard duel was carefully planned by Voldemort to reduce the danger to himself and maximize Harry's chances of dying. Voldemort had failed once, and he's not the sort to allow a second one to happen. He doesn't understand that love saved Harry the first time, but he knows that something did. He hopes that the potion will have anulated the protection, but still is very careful with Harry. He does not hit Harry with an AK as soon as Harry arrives: if it rebounds and hits him or Peter, he's in trouble. He doesn't even hit him with an AK as soon as he recorpoates, but waits until he has made sure he can touch him, and yet still waits until he has debilitated Harry with Crucios for his body and Imperius for his mind. Notice that when Harry survives all this, Voldemort shows no surprise: he had already planned this. The only times his "eyes widdened in shock" are when the priori incantatem is starting and taking place. He had not planned that, and, just as 14 years before, he does not know what's going on. This is all part of a theory, based on solid canon, that Pip exposed in posts 36662 and 40044 and that I defend, and that we call MAGIC DISHWASHER. People have found flaws in it, so there's a nice long post by me in 39854 that resumes the first half of the theory and includes all the patches to the flaws. We never got down to resuming the second part, but fortunately is shorter than the first. Hope that helps, Grey Wolf From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Wed Aug 21 09:55:55 2002 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (bboy_mn) Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 09:55:55 -0000 Subject: Duel Harry (general) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42986 Some (hopefully short) General comments on the discussion of Harry dueling. GREY WOLF: Two words: Win-GAR-dium Le-vi-O-sa. Focused magic spells require a very careful pronunciation of the words, and a very careful flick of the wrists. To be able to cast a spell, you have to know both, or the results will probably cause you more harm than good. Notice too that, even if Harry had trained to recognize the pronunciation, which he hasn't, the wrist movement must be almost invisible (since they're never commented upon). ...SNIP... - end This part - Grey Wolf - bboy_mn adds some thoughts: "Win-GAR-dium Le-vi-O-sa" which in the simplest terms, is 'levitate a feather'. But Ron was able to use it to levitate a massive troll club. This re-enforces how powerful intent is in casting a spell. Snape cast 'Expelliarmus' and blew Lockhart halfway across the great hall, when it typically just levitates the other persons wand into your hand. So, if Harry had hit Sirius with any significant charm/curse and had murderous intent behind it, and a murderous rage behind it, he could have done some real damage, especially, when he was only inches away from Sirius' heart. Although, in general, something along the line of 'stupefy' or Reductor Curse (or similar) would have the greatest potential for danger. Grey Wolf continues: On the other hand, unfocused magic comes naturally at Harry, and always works when he's in a desperate situation, but unable to use focused magic to get out of it (before going to Hogwarts, because he didn't know magic existed, afterwards, because the Dursleys stop him from using his wand). Please note that I *DIDN'T* say that unfocused magic is more powerful, I only said the *HARRY* is more powerful without without a wand. ...SNIP... - end Grey Wolf - this part - bboy_mn rambles on: I'm with you on this one, both on the general concept and the fact that you were referring specifically to Harry. Although, 'unfocused' magic is probably the correct way of referring to it, in a sense it is uncontrolled magic or better yet magic out of control, out of Harry's control, like a dam suddenly bursting. Plus, his magic is frequently acting spontaneously to protect him, almost like a magical reflexive survival instinct. I just don't think Harry's unfocused magic is as simple as being a losing of one's magical temper. I think Harry has a powerful force of magic in him that can act with the specific intent of protecting him; magical survival instinct. While this may not apply so much to the Sirius Shrieking Shack situation, it could have very strongly applied to the Voldemort Graveyard situation. If pushed far enough, assuming he was able to react soon enough, before Big_V AK'd him, his uncontrolled force of instinctive survival magic could have unleashed substantial power. But, by giving Harry his wand, he forces the situation into a whole new framework. -end bboy_mn - this part - Grey Wolf continues" Speaking of this, I would like to point out that Expelliarmus wasn't that bad choice. It's a reverse spell: if it works, it gives you the advantage and a free spell, effectively reversing the course of the fight. Harry was on the defensive there, and by expelliarming Voldemort, he could start going on the offensive. ....SNIP.... Hope that helps, END - Grey Wolf bboy_mn finally: Did anybody else notice that when Harry and Draco tried to curse each other, and they cursed at the same time, their curses hit mid-air and were deflected. Harry's hit (I forget which one) one of Draco's goons, and Draco's dental curse hit Hermione. I always took that as JKR's hint that simultaneous curses can interact in unusual ways. Her way of telling us 'pay attention, this is going to come up again'. Probably doesn't add up to much; just some thoughts I'm throwing in. bboy_mn From eloiseherisson at aol.com Wed Aug 21 12:21:56 2002 From: eloiseherisson at aol.com (eloise_herisson) Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 12:21:56 -0000 Subject: Duel Harry (WAS: Harry Wasn't Going to *Really* Kill Sirius) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42987 > > Phyllis again: > > > > Here I *really* disagree with you, based on an interview in which JKR > > said that you can do unfocused magic without a wand, but to do > > focused magic you need a wand. I just can't see how *unfocused* > > magic can be more powerful than *focused* magic. Well, I know JKR invented the magic herself and ought to be the final authority, but surely we see focussed magic performed without a wand? Quirrell merely snaps his fingers in order to get ropes to bind Harry. IIRC Snape performs the same wandless spell in POA (my son's gone off to the his grandparents' with the canon!).Isn't that focussed? There are other examples, I'm sure. Sirius and Pettigrew don't need wands to perform the animagus transformation. I can't think that there's a much more focussed spell than *that*. Eloise who wishes she had a spell to do the packing, as she's shortly off for a few days to the grandparents' herself, with the rest of her brood. From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Wed Aug 21 12:57:59 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 12:57:59 -0000 Subject: Duel Harry: defining terms In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42988 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "eloise_herisson" wrote: > > > Phyllis again: > > > > > > Here I *really* disagree with you, based on an interview in which > JKR > > > said that you can do unfocused magic without a wand, but to do > > > focused magic you need a wand. I just can't see how *unfocused* > > > magic can be more powerful than *focused* magic. > > Well, I know JKR invented the magic herself and ought to be the final > authority, but surely we see focussed magic performed without a wand? > > Quirrell merely snaps his fingers in order to get ropes to bind > Harry. IIRC Snape performs the same wandless spell in POA (my son's > gone off to the his grandparents' with the canon!).Isn't that > focussed? There are other examples, I'm sure. > > Sirius and Pettigrew don't need wands to perform the animagus > transformation. I can't think that there's a much more focussed spell > than *that*. > > Eloise OK, people in the list seem to be starting to get confused about the teminology I've been using (these happens very frecuently with my posts. Maybe I should stop inventing terms when I don't know what English people call it. Nah, who am I kiding, I *have* to invent words or else, how would I explain my points?). Without going into the debate about ancient magic, we can define two major forms of magic: Unfocused magic: this is the magic that Harry uses when he feels threatened, unconfortable or otherwise in a sticky situation. We know that Harry isn't the only one that does this kind of magic, since Neville protects himself from a two-storey fall by bouncing. I call it unfocused because there is no conscious direction of the magic. The wizard feels threatened in some way (in his pride, for example, in the case of the hair and the jumper/sweater), and unconciously calls the magic to protect him. Focused magic: This obviously includes all the magic that a wizard or witch generates by consciously directing the magic to a specific effect (i.e. uses a spell). Within it this list defines traditionally two sub-clases: wandless magic and wand-directed magic, but there are really one and the same. The wand is an instrument that channels the conscious magic and helps define it, but there are any number of examples in the books of spells formed or directed without a wand. Those wizards that don't use a wand for a spell could have a bigger effect with a wand, but normally they don't need a bigger effect: they are powerful enough to cast the spell without a wand. But in both cases it's conscious, or focused, magic. I think there is no doubt that, in general, focused magic is more powerful, but in Harry's case, who hasn't yet finished his training in the job, his unfocused magic is still much more powerful. And if he really has enormous power at his disposition because of whatever reason (heir of Gryfindor, combined power of Lily and Voldemort, or just him being a magical genius just like Mozart was a musical genius are some of the prefered theories of the list), his unfocused magic is going to be more powerful than his focused one for the next books. Hope that helps, Grey Wolf, who knows that ancient and elemental magic are also other possible kinds of magic, but that he nonetheless is not going down that alley in this post. From rvotaw at i-55.com Wed Aug 21 14:29:17 2002 From: rvotaw at i-55.com (rvotaw at i-55.com) Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 09:29:17 -0500 (CDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Duel Harry: defining terms Message-ID: <6688684.1029940157142.JavaMail.root@webmail.i-55.com> No: HPFGUIDX 42989 > > > > Phyllis again: > > > > > > > > Here I *really* disagree with you, based on an interview in which > > JKR > > > > said that you can do unfocused magic without a wand, but to do > > > > focused magic you need a wand. I just can't see how *unfocused* > > > > magic can be more powerful than *focused* magic. I think it depends on the circumstances. Harry's blowing up his aunt seems to me more powerful than, say, the jelly legs curse. Grey Wolf writes: > Unfocused magic: this is the magic that Harry uses when he feels > threatened, unconfortable or otherwise in a sticky situation. We know > that Harry isn't the only one that does this kind of magic, since > Neville protects himself from a two-storey fall by bouncing. I call it > unfocused because there is no conscious direction of the magic. The > wizard feels threatened in some way (in his pride, for example, in the > case of the hair and the jumper/sweater), and unconciously calls the > magic to protect him. The way I view unfocused magic is pretty much the same. I think Harry's self defense mechanisms are possibly more powerful than his "trained" magic. Of course, he isn't fully trained, so this may change. Most of the instances of Harry doing unfocused magic are before he knew he was a wizard. I think only the blowing up of Aunt Marge was after, right? If Harry were now put in a situation without a wand and nothing to protect himself, it's possible that he could dig down and through sheer emotion elicit a powerful magical response. Grey Wolf: > Focused magic: This obviously includes all the magic that a wizard or > witch generates by consciously directing the magic to a specific effect > (i.e. uses a spell). Within it this list defines traditionally two > sub-clases: wandless magic and wand-directed magic, but there are Here's how I see the focused/ wand directed magic. Let's take a highly advanced wizard like Dumbledore. We rarely see him use a wand. He's trained enough to hone his magic pretty well without use of a wand. However, even Dumbledore in a life or death situation still relies on his wand. The only time I can remember Dumbledore using a wand (don't have my books handy to check) is at the Quidditch match where the Dementors showed up. Harry was in danger of a fatal fall from 50 feet up, Dumbledore couldn't take a chance on missing. So he pulled out his wand to slow Harry's fall. If he hadn't used a wand and by some chance missed with his magic, Harry could've been killed by the fall. On the other hand, when changing decorations in the Great Hall, it doesn't really matter if they rumple a little wrong or the sleeping bags turn up lumpy or whatever. It's not a life or death matter. Grey Wolf again: > really has enormous power at his disposition because of whatever reason > (heir of Gryfindor, combined power of Lily and Voldemort, or just him > being a magical genius just like Mozart was a musical genius are some > of the prefered theories of the list), his unfocused magic is going to > be more powerful than his focused one for the next books. > Now that this has been brought up, I think it would be Harry's greatest form of defense. Sheer hatred directed at Voldemort could do who knows what. More than Harry would intend, perhaps, if that's possible. Richelle ---------- --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "eloise_herisson" wrote: > > > Phyllis again: > > > > > > Here I *really* disagree with you, based on an interview in which > JKR > > > said that you can do unfocused magic without a wand, but to do > > > focused magic you need a wand. I just can't see how *unfocused* > > > magic can be more powerful than *focused* magic. > > Well, I know JKR invented the magic herself and ought to be the final > authority, but surely we see focussed magic performed without a wand? > > Quirrell merely snaps his fingers in order to get ropes to bind > Harry. IIRC Snape performs the same wandless spell in POA (my son's > gone off to the his grandparents' with the canon!).Isn't that > focussed? There are other examples, I'm sure. > > Sirius and Pettigrew don't need wands to perform the animagus > transformation. I can't think that there's a much more focussed spell > than *that*. > > Eloise OK, people in the list seem to be starting to get confused about the teminology I've been using (these happens very frecuently with my posts. Maybe I should stop inventing terms when I don't know what English people call it. Nah, who am I kiding, I *have* to invent words or else, how would I explain my points?). Without going into the debate about ancient magic, we can define two major forms of magic: Unfocused magic: this is the magic that Harry uses when he feels threatened, unconfortable or otherwise in a sticky situation. We know that Harry isn't the only one that does this kind of magic, since Neville protects himself from a two-storey fall by bouncing. I call it unfocused because there is no conscious direction of the magic. The wizard feels threatened in some way (in his pride, for example, in the case of the hair and the jumper/sweater), and unconciously calls the magic to protect him. Focused magic: This obviously includes all the magic that a wizard or witch generates by consciously directing the magic to a specific effect (i.e. uses a spell). Within it this list defines traditionally two sub-clases: wandless magic and wand-directed magic, but there are really one and the same. The wand is an instrument that channels the conscious magic and helps define it, but there are any number of examples in the books of spells formed or directed without a wand. Those wizards that don't use a wand for a spell could have a bigger effect with a wand, but normally they don't need a bigger effect: they are powerful enough to cast the spell without a wand. But in both cases it's conscious, or focused, magic. I think there is no doubt that, in general, focused magic is more powerful, but in Harry's case, who hasn't yet finished his training in the job, his unfocused magic is still much more powerful. And if he really has enormous power at his disposition because of whatever reason (heir of Gryfindor, combined power of Lily and Voldemort, or just him being a magical genius just like Mozart was a musical genius are some of the prefered theories of the list), his unfocused magic is going to be more powerful than his focused one for the next books. Hope that helps, Grey Wolf, who knows that ancient and elemental magic are also other possible kinds of magic, but that he nonetheless is not going down that alley in this post. ________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/ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From msiscusack at yahoo.com Wed Aug 21 13:44:53 2002 From: msiscusack at yahoo.com (Kristin Cusack) Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 06:44:53 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups]the burrow In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020821134453.30854.qmail@web13102.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 42990 > > bboy_comments: > > This brings up an interesting point. I always > assumed that Mrs. > Weasley called (telephoned) the muggle taxis from > the town post > office. Which is true, but I also assumed that they > waited at the post > office for the taxis to arrive and loaded everything > up there. > Just another point for this question baout the Burrow being accessible to muggles... even if it turned out that they were picked up by the taxis at the post office, they return to the Burrow about 2 or 3 times to run back in a grab things that were forgotten. (I forget what since I don't have the books with me but I believe Ginny went in and one of the twins went in.) So, obviously the Muggle taxis were able to reach the Burrow to allow them to return and grab forgotten items. ~Kristin __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? HotJobs - Search Thousands of New Jobs http://www.hotjobs.com From supermouse35 at yahoo.com Wed Aug 21 04:18:59 2002 From: supermouse35 at yahoo.com (supermouse35) Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 04:18:59 -0000 Subject: Percy as Traitor? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42991 There's been some talk on-list recently about the idea of either Neville or Seamus being a traitor in the later books. I'm currently re-reading GoF and the following passage from the end of Chapter 27 caught my eye (p. 534 in the hardback US edition): "Percy would never throw any of his family to the dementors," said Hermione severely. "I don't know," said Ron. "If he thought we were standing in the way of his career... Percy's really ambitious, you know..." JKR isn't the type of writer to just throw a passage like this in for no reason. So what do you think, is this foreshadowing? Or is she tossing us another of her famous red herrings? Gina From metal_tiara at hotmail.com Wed Aug 21 02:35:47 2002 From: metal_tiara at hotmail.com (sophineclaire) Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 02:35:47 -0000 Subject: Possible Lestrange Inspiration? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42992 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "nicolasixisme" wrote: > Hello all. > > Since JKR takes inspiration from so many quarters, I wonder if there > isn't a connection between the Lestranges and the central character of > Gladys Mitchell's novels. The character is a curiously amoral witch > named Beatrice Adela Lestrange Bradley: > I'm currently in the process of reading Henry James novel " Portrait of a Lady" and while I was skimming through it one day I saw a couple of names that made me think of Harry Potter; Rosier and Pansy. As I said I'm in the process of reading "portrait" and have yet to really be introduced to these characters, but I since JKR said that she loved reading Jane Austen and the like, I wouldn't be surprised if she was used the names of the character from those novels as a connection to their personalities or as a tribute to the novels that she so enjoyed. -sophineclaire Who thinks Snape is a combination of Heathcliff and Mr. Darcy if she does say so herself. From divaclv at aol.com Wed Aug 21 15:18:11 2002 From: divaclv at aol.com (c_voth312) Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 15:18:11 -0000 Subject: Percy as Traitor? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42993 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "supermouse35" wrote: > There's been some talk on-list recently about the idea of either > Neville or Seamus being a traitor in the later books. I'm > currently re-reading GoF and the following passage from the end of > Chapter 27 caught my eye (p. 534 in the hardback US edition): > > "Percy would never throw any of his family to the dementors," said > Hermione severely. > > "I don't know," said Ron. "If he thought we were standing in the way > of his career... Percy's really ambitious, you know..." > > JKR isn't the type of writer to just throw a passage like this in for > no reason. So what do you think, is this foreshadowing? Or is she > tossing us another of her famous red herrings? > > Gina If there's friction between the MoM and Dumbledore's crew (and given the closing chapters of GoF, I'd say the probability of it is very high), then I can easily see Percy being at odds with his family. He does have a certain level of ambition and self-absorbtion which would lead him to side with the Ministry over his own kin. Although, like Fudge, I think he'd firmly believe it was "all for the best." ~Christi From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Wed Aug 21 15:25:37 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 15:25:37 -0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups]the burrow In-Reply-To: <20020821134453.30854.qmail@web13102.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42994 Kristin Cusack wrote: > Just another point for this question baout the Burrow > being accessible to muggles... > even if it turned out that they were picked up by the > taxis at the post office, they return to the Burrow > about 2 or 3 times to run back in a grab things that > were forgotten. (I forget what since I don't have the > books with me but I believe Ginny went in and one of > the twins went in.) So, obviously the Muggle taxis > were able to reach the Burrow to allow them to return > and grab forgotten items. > ~Kristin That was in book 2, CoS, and the car was not a taxi, but the flying ford anglia. It's easy to remember because one of the things they nearly leave behind is Ginny's diary, which is the main plot point of the book. And also because it's only one car, for the 8 people involved and the 6 trunks plus assorted animals, etc. and yet they all fit perfectly in the modified Ford Anglia, and Molly makes a comment about it, too. Hope that helps, Grey Wolf From rvotaw at i-55.com Wed Aug 21 15:28:34 2002 From: rvotaw at i-55.com (rvotaw at i-55.com) Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 10:28:34 -0500 (CDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Percy as Traitor? Message-ID: <8054147.1029943714046.JavaMail.root@webmail.i-55.com> No: HPFGUIDX 42995 Gina writes: > "Percy would never throw any of his family to the dementors," said > Hermione severely. > > "I don't know," said Ron. "If he thought we were standing in the way > of his career... Percy's really ambitious, you know..." > > JKR isn't the type of writer to just throw a passage like this in for > no reason. So what do you think, is this foreshadowing? Or is she > tossing us another of her famous red herrings? That's not the only clue that's turned me on to Percy. In SS/PS, Quirrell says that Voldemort told him "there is no good or evil only power and those too weak to seek it." Percy is as power hungry as they come. I think he'd sell his family out, sell his own soul, for power. JKR has said we'd find out in Book 5 whether Percy sides with his family or with Fudge. Since his job depends on Fudge I'm 99% sure he'll go with Fudge and against his family. Later on, I wouldn't doubt his role as a traitor either. He is way too career oriented for his own good. Hermione tends to look for the best in people, at least 80% of the time. Harry and Ron tend to look for the worst. I suppose Harry got used to that, he seems to doubt everyone for a time. And then, those he has put his trust in have turned on him at times--like Moody/Crouch. He trusts the Weasleys in general, so I don't doubt it would be one of them to betray him. And Percy's the most likely candidate in my book. Richelle ---------- There's been some talk on-list recently about the idea of either Neville or Seamus being a traitor in the later books. I'm currently re-reading GoF and the following passage from the end of Chapter 27 caught my eye (p. 534 in the hardback US edition): "Percy would never throw any of his family to the dementors," said Hermione severely. "I don't know," said Ron. "If he thought we were standing in the way of his career... Percy's really ambitious, you know..." JKR isn't the type of writer to just throw a passage like this in for no reason. So what do you think, is this foreshadowing? Or is she tossing us another of her famous red herrings? Gina ________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/ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Wed Aug 21 15:49:07 2002 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (bboy_mn) Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 15:49:07 -0000 Subject: Possible Lestrange & Names In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42996 This is more of a general comment- --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "sophineclaire" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "nicolasixisme" wrote: > > Hello all. > > > > Since JKR takes inspiration from so many quarters, I wonder > > if there isn't a connection between the Lestranges and the > > central character of Gladys Mitchell's novels. The character > > is a curiously amoral witch named Beatrice Adela Lestrange > >Bradley: > > > > > I'm currently in the process of reading Henry James novel > " Portrait of a Lady" and while I was skimming through it one > day I saw a couple of names that made me think of Harry Potter; > Rosier and Pansy. > > As I said I'm in the process of reading "portrait" and have yet > to really be introduced to these characters, but I since JKR said > that she loved reading Jane Austen and the like, I wouldn't be > surprised if she was used the names of the character from those > novels as a connection to their personalities or as a tribute to > the novels that she so enjoyed. > > -sophineclaire > Who thinks Snape is a combination of Heathcliff and Mr. Darcy if > she does say so herself. Just a general comment about names. I know there are a lot of people here who are authors themselves, and I think (hope) they will back me up on this. Trying to find good names for your story characters is not an easy task. It would seem easy. I mean how hard could it be? Trust me it's hard, and most authors use the same basic techniques that JKR did; maps (I've done that), telephone books (I've done that), I needed a Irish name so I research Irish poet on the net, needed a Russian name so I research Russian poets and authors; even then I really didn't come up with a full set of names. In this case, I needed 7 names for Quidditch players. Sounds so easy, but I'm still struggling with the 7th name and am only marginally satisfied with the 6th name. One of the other characters in my story is named after a pack of cigarettes (Dunhill). I check international baby name website, historical and contemporary surname archives. Dispite all that, what I do hardly amounts to anything compared to the depth and breadth of what Rowling accomplishes. I am thoroughly impressed by how knowledgable and educated JKR is, and to have done so much research and to have given so much significants to so many characters name is ....well, like I said ... thoroughly impressive. Like - Did you know St. Mungo is the partron saint of Glasgow, Scotland. Hummmmm.... I wonder if that means St. Mungo's Hospital is in Glasgow? Did you know the Hermes (Percy's owl) is also the name of one of the 3 greatest sorcerers of Merlin's time (at least according to one authors account in THE BOY APPRENTICED TO AN ENCHANTER by Padric Colum 1920 http://www.lib.rochester.edu/camelot/columboy.htm ). Plus, everyone of her magical creatures, to the best of my knowledge, is real; well, real in the mythical sense. But I'm straying from my point. JKR has said that she has a habit of collecting names. So, it is a never ending life long work for her. Where ever she goes if she sees an interesting name, she makes note of it on the off chance that she might need it for a characters name. I guess the only real point to all this rambling, is to say that while I find JKR's writing style to be very efficient and compact, at the same time I am blown away by the intellectual force that backs up that writing. Just rambling, sorry. bboy_mn From psychchick04 at yahoo.com Wed Aug 21 15:55:24 2002 From: psychchick04 at yahoo.com (Jacqueline Hendries) Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 08:55:24 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Percy as Traitor? In-Reply-To: <8054147.1029943714046.JavaMail.root@webmail.i-55.com> Message-ID: <20020821155524.68450.qmail@web9207.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 42997 > Gina writes: > > > "Percy would never throw any of his family to the dementors," said > > Hermione severely. > > > > "I don't know," said Ron. "If he thought we were standing in the > way > > of his career... Percy's really ambitious, you know..." > > > > JKR isn't the type of writer to just throw a passage like this in > for > > no reason. So what do you think, is this foreshadowing? Or is she > > > tossing us another of her famous red herrings? Richelle added: > That's not the only clue that's turned me on to Percy. In SS/PS, > Quirrell says > that Voldemort told him "there is no good or evil only power and > those too weak > to seek it." Percy is as power hungry as they come. I think he'd > sell his > family out, sell his own soul, for power. > > JKR has said we'd find out in Book 5 whether Percy sides with his > family or > with Fudge. Since his job depends on Fudge I'm 99% sure he'll go > with Fudge > and against his family. Later on, I wouldn't doubt his role as a > traitor > either. He is way too career oriented for his own good. Now me: Don't forget the book he was reading: "Prefects Who Gained Power." When I first saw this, I immediately thought of Tom Riddle, but I don't think it's *so* obvious that it has to be a red herring. Personally, I don't think that Percy will be *Ever-so-Evil*, but he may inadvertently help out Voldemort by siding with Fudge and not taking any action. Or, an even more interesting scenario: If Fudge turns out to be *Ever-so-Evil* but masks this with the "all-for-the-best" guise, Percy may side with him without thinking/realising that he is really siding with Voldemort. Of course, Percy could turn out to be sadistic and cruel, but I don't think we've seen evidence for that side of him - just that he's power hungry. ~ Jackie ===== also known as Aloha Moira Read Potters, A History - Chapter 9 is coming soon to a Schnoogle near you! www.schnoogle.com/authorLinks/Aloha_Moira/Potters_A_History __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? HotJobs - Search Thousands of New Jobs http://www.hotjobs.com From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Wed Aug 21 16:03:58 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 16:03:58 -0000 Subject: Thoughs on Wingardium Leviosa Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 42998 I'm always been a very strong defender of the intention-driven spells theory, which states that it is more imprtant what the wizard wants to do than what the spell actually says, which would explain why a general sounding spell can be directed so precisly as we've seen happen again and again in the books. Maybe the most clear example of this is the spell "Wingardium Leviosa", which we take to mean "levitate the feather" and that we see Harry and co. practicing in the chapter of the Troll in PS, and when later in the same chapter Ron uses it again to have a cudgel fall in the troll's head. However, bboy_mn's post earlier today has made me think it from a new perspective. I've always asumed (and generaly in the list it has been asumed as well) that Ron was capable of using a spell meant to levitate feathers in the cudgel by sheer will power. However, there is another possibility that just occoured to me. We know that JKR isn't using real Latin for these spells. The Latin words coincide all right (most of the time), but it cannot be said the same about declinations (at least, that's as far as I've been able to follow Latin discussions in the list. They're not for the layman and I was at best an indiferent Latin student at school). If we assume that declinations mean nothing, but were selected by which sounded the best, there is another interpretation to the wingardium leviosa spell: "To levitate *like* a feather". After all, most of the spells we have seen are general, like accio, which brings something to the wizard. While Harry does use "accio firebolt" to help himself in the focusing, many of the accio spells we've seen are simple "accio"s without specific direction (check Molly's accio to the twins pockets). The same thing could happen in the case of Wingardium Leviosa: it's just a spell to make levitate, and the wizard has to center his will on the object that they want to levitate (a cudgel, in the case of Ron), but there is no need to change "Wingardium" to the object in question. They only use real feathers in class because their less dangerous than knives or desks, and the students can picture the effect easier (after all, it's not difficult to see a feather floating, while a chair floating in midair is more difficult to believe). The only real trouble for the theory is the fact that "Wing-" is not Latin at all, but English pure and simple, and it definately looks out of place. Hope that helps, Grey Wolf, who doesn't know if he believes this theory, but that nontheless it's a good idea to contemplate. From DaveH47 at mindspring.com Wed Aug 21 17:43:11 2002 From: DaveH47 at mindspring.com (Dave Hardenbrook) Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 10:43:11 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Percy as Traitor? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2668782643.20020821104311@mindspring.com> No: HPFGUIDX 42999 Wednesday, August 21, 2002, 8:18:11 AM, c_voth312 wrote: c> If there's friction between the MoM and Dumbledore's crew (and given c> the closing chapters of GoF, I'd say the probability of it is very c> high), then I can easily see Percy being at odds with his family. He c> does have a certain level of ambition and self-absorbtion which would c> lead him to side with the Ministry over his own kin. Although, like c> Fudge, I think he'd firmly believe it was "all for the best." But would he go as far as to throw Arthur and Molly (as members of "the old crowd") into Azkaban, in order to remove any barriers to his own rise to power? Of course I'm doubtful there's even going to *be* an Azkaban after Book 5, if Voldy plans to "burst it open"... -- Dave From absinthe at mad.scientist.com Wed Aug 21 18:29:48 2002 From: absinthe at mad.scientist.com (milztoday) Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 18:29:48 -0000 Subject: Percy as Traitor? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43000 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "supermouse35" wrote: > There's been some talk on-list recently about the idea of either > Neville or Seamus being a traitor in the later books. I'm > currently re-reading GoF and the following passage from the end of > Chapter 27 caught my eye (p. 534 in the hardback US edition): > > "Percy would never throw any of his family to the dementors," said > Hermione severely. > > "I don't know," said Ron. "If he thought we were standing in the way > of his career... Percy's really ambitious, you know..." > > JKR isn't the type of writer to just throw a passage like this in for > no reason. So what do you think, is this foreshadowing? Or is she > tossing us another of her famous red herrings? > > Gina Couple of things.... I think Percy will be in Azkaban in Book 5. Fudge needs a scapegoat for Barty Crouch Sr's death/disappearance and Percy looks like the logical choice. Second, I have a theory that the Weasley's are loosely based upon the Mitford family, a political and literary family during the mid-20th century. Rowling is familiar with the Mitfords to the point that she named her daughter, Jessica, after one of them. So far, there are numerous parallels between the Mitfords and the Weasley's; too numerous to be dismissed as simple coincidence. To make a long story short. One of the Mitfords was married to Sir Oswald Mosley, the leader of the British Fascist Party during WW II. She spent two years in prison as a political prisoner. One of the people who turned her in was her own sister. So I do think there will be a Weasley family betrayal. But I don't know who will be the betrayor and who will be the betrayed. Milz From bdmorrp at budget.state.ny.us Wed Aug 21 19:04:12 2002 From: bdmorrp at budget.state.ny.us (erisedstraeh2002) Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 19:04:12 -0000 Subject: Is Harry More Powerful Without a Wand? (WAS: Duel Harry) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43001 Grey Wolf wrote: >Voldemort gives a wand to Harry because Harry's more powerful *without* a wand. and Melody responded: >No, he gave Harry his wand because that is what you do in a duel. Now me: I'm of the opinion that this scene is just what JKR tells us it is: Voldemort gives Harry his wand back "so there can be no doubt as to which of us is the stronger". I don't see a need to read anything more into this other than what I think is the obvious, which is that Voldemort is an ego-maniac who needs to show his Death Eaters that "the skinny little boy with no extraordinary magical talent" will not be able to defeat the "greatest sorceror of all time" on a level playing field. If Voldemort throws an AK at Harry while he is still tied up and wandless, there would be lingering doubts among his followers as to whether he could have killed Harry off if Harry had not been at such an unfair advantage. Grey Wolf also wrote: >The graveyard duel was carefully planned by Voldemort to reduce the >danger to himself and maximize Harry's chances of dying. He >does not hit Harry with an AK as soon as Harry arrives: if it >rebounds and hits him or Peter, he's in trouble. Me again: The incantation Pettigrew uses when he takes Harry's blood is "Blood of the foe, *forcibly* taken." I think the reason Harry isn't immediately AK'd is that if he were dead, taking his blood wouldn't be by *force* and Voldemort's recorporation potion wouldn't have worked. Grey Wolf again: >He [Voldemort] doesn't even hit him with an AK as soon as he >recorporates, but waits until he has made sure he can touch him, and >yet still waits until he has debilitated Harry with Crucios for his >body and Imperius for his mind. Notice that when Harry survives all >this, Voldemort shows no surprise: he had already planned this. Me again: I think, given Voldemort's past experience with his AK rebounding off Harry, Voldemort had to be *absolutely* sure that he had broken the protection Lily left in Harry via the "old magic" before he would risk touching him. On the Imperius - I don't think Voldemort would have tried the Imperius Curse if he knew in advance that Harry could resist it. Back to my premise, I think Voldemort was doing as much as possible to make Harry look like a fool and himself as all-powerful (which is why he threw the Crucios and the Imperius curses and made Harry's spine bend so he would bow - as I recall, the Death Eaters laugh at this point). So I think Voldemort is actually embarrassed when Harry resists the Imperius, but covers it up well so that he doesn't admit his humiliation in front of his followers. Which leads me to an interesting side-question, which is why Voldemort doesn't know that Harry can resist the Imperius while Fake! Moody does know this? The only way I can rationalize this is if Fake! Moody and Voldemort limited their communication while Fake!Moody was at Hogwarts in case their owls were intercepted, which would have blown Fake!Moody's cover. I also wonder why Fake!Moody worked with Harry to help him resist the Imperius in the first place? This I rationalize by thinking that it would have blown Fake!Moody's cover if Dumbledore heard that Harry had shown promise in Imperius- resistance and Fake!Moody hadn't done anything to help him hone this ability. In a previous post, I said: >JKR said that you can do unfocused magic without a wand, but to do >focused magic you need a wand. I just can't see how *unfocused* >magic can be more powerful than *focused* magic. To which several listies responded by pointing out excellent examples in the text of focused magic performed without wands. And I then remembered yet another interview where JKR said that we might be seeing something in future books about a character being able to do magic with his/her eyes. So, how to make JKR's statements coincide with the text? Perhaps it has to do with the inner power of the witch or wizard her/himself. Perhaps JKR was just making a generalization about the wizarding population when she said that focused magic needs a wand. Since we see glimpses of Harry's tremendous inner power (he can conjure a Patronus at a young age, he can resist the Imperius Curse on the first try - heck, even Barty Crouches Sr. and Jr. and Real! Moody couldn't do that!), perhaps the extraordinary wizard like Dumbledore or Harry can do focused magic without a wand. This concurs with yet another interview in which JKR said that Harry "*without anyone really noticing it* is becoming exceptionally good at Defense Against the Dark Arts. So that's the one area in which, almost instinctively, he is particularly talented. Apart from Quidditch." Which leads me to ask: How would Voldemort *know* that Harry would be more powerful without a wand? ~Phyllis From rusalka at ix.netcom.com Wed Aug 21 20:35:55 2002 From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants) Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 20:35:55 -0000 Subject: Is Harry More Powerful Without a Wand? (WAS: Duel Harry) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43002 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "erisedstraeh2002" wrote: > Which leads me to an interesting side-question, which is why > Voldemort doesn't know that Harry can resist the Imperius while Fake! > Moody does know this? The only way I can rationalize this is if Fake! > Moody and Voldemort limited their communication while Fake!Moody was > at Hogwarts in case their owls were intercepted, which would have > blown Fake!Moody's cover. Well, if Voldemort is such a great big egomaniac (and I agree with you that he is), then maybe he did know about Harry's resistance, but thought that *his* Imperius is ever so much stronger than Crouches. "Ha!" he said, "that boy may resist Barty's puny attempts at Imperius, but there's no way he could possibly fight off MINE!!!" Silly Evil Overlord. Marina rusalka at ix.netcom.com From gandharvika at hotmail.com Wed Aug 21 17:08:10 2002 From: gandharvika at hotmail.com (Gail Bohacek) Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 17:08:10 +0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Hermione (FILK) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43003 Hermione (a FILK by Gail Bohacek to the tune _Come on Eileen_ by Dexy's Midnight Runners) Does anybody remember this song? The music is *so* perky...I love it. I like my lyrics better, though. Note: Ron is singing the lead. The lyrics in the parentheses are Fred, George and Lee Jordan singing back-up vocals. Percy's playing the fiddle. Hermione Hermione We first met on the train On the way to Hogwarts, you were there With your buck teeth and frizzy hair We thought you were a know-it-all, who'd blame us? Now you've grown (You've grown) I've grown (So grown) Now I must say more than ever (Hermione) Toora loora toora loo rye aye My feeling have changed for you since then Hermione, Oh I swear (On his knees) At this moment, it's just you and me We've been through a lot Of some very tight spots But since then, ah Hermione Hermione Those guys 'round Slytherin You study very hard, it's such a struggle But they mock you 'coz your family's muggle But not me (No no no) No, not me (No no no) I know you're much more smart and clever (You heard him) Toora loora toora loo rye aye I'll fight for your honor any day Hermione, Oh I swear (Listen please) Your blood-line, it don't mean a thing That git Draco, I'll punch his fat nose If he trys to say any thing (Come on, Hermione rye aye) (Come on, Hermione rye aye) Now you've grown (Toora) Now I've matured (Toora too loora) Oh, please, say Hermione (Come on) There's something that I really want to know (Hermione rye aye) Do you also feel? (Come on, Hermione rye aye) I must ask now more than ever (Toora loora too loora) Everything has changed, I said Toora (Hermione) Loora (Too loo rye aye) Toora (Hermione) Loo rye aye (Too loo rye aye) (Toora toora too loo rye aye) Hermione, oh I swear (Hear him sing) I will tell you how I was feeling When I saw you with Krum I said you were dumb But darling, that was jelousy Hermione, oh I swear (What he means) At the Yule Ball, you were breathtaking (In those robes) My thoughts (He'll disclose) Well, I won't say...Hermione! Hermione...woh, oh, oh -Gail B. _________________________________________________________________ Join the worlds largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com From rvotaw at i-55.com Wed Aug 21 21:52:32 2002 From: rvotaw at i-55.com (Richelle Votaw) Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 16:52:32 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Percy as Traitor?/ Harry's power References: <20020821155524.68450.qmail@web9207.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <015801c2495d$0dda6d40$a8a1cdd1@istu757> No: HPFGUIDX 43004 > > Gina writes: > > > > > "Percy would never throw any of his family to the dementors," said > > > Hermione severely. > > > > > > "I don't know," said Ron. "If he thought we were standing in the > > way > > > of his career... Percy's really ambitious, you know..." Oh, if this turns out to be true it could also point to the "Ron is a Seer" theory. Jackie writes: > Personally, I don't think that Percy will be *Ever-so-Evil*, but he may > inadvertently help out Voldemort by siding with Fudge and not taking > any action. Or, an even more interesting scenario: If Fudge turns out > to be *Ever-so-Evil* but masks this with the "all-for-the-best" guise, > Percy may side with him without thinking/realising that he is really > siding with Voldemort. Of course, Percy could turn out to be sadistic > and cruel, but I don't think we've seen evidence for that side of him - > just that he's power hungry. To elaborate a little more on my thoughts of Percy's future, I think that he will side with Fudge and perhaps inadvertantly betray his family, or perhaps intentionally. As for Azkaban, I doubt there will be an Azkaban by the end of book 5. At least not in the current state with dementors and all. Anyway, back to Percy, if Fudge does turn out evil and Percy has "accidentally" sided with Voldemort, he could snap out of it at the last possible moment with an "Oh, no, what have I done!" kind of realization. Which makes a case for Percy dying. I'm really not trying to kill all the Weasleys off (though I seem to have made a case for pretty much everyone), but there's just so many of them! With JKR's comments "I know all of them who are going to die." and "I'm definitely killing people I love, yeah. It's horrible isn't it? It is actually." and "There's worse coming [after Book 4 and Cedric's death]." and "There are reasons for the deaths in each case, in terms of the story. So that's why I'm doing it." those definitely make me think the odds are against all the Weasleys surviving, what with nine of them. Oh, say, that's it! A Weasley falls, the "fellowship" is broken and everything falls apart. Just kidding, couldn't help throw out the Tolkien connection. Now, on to other things. In regards to Harry's powers: Phyllis writes: > This concurs with yet another interview in which JKR said that > Harry "*without anyone really noticing it* is becoming exceptionally > good at Defense Against the Dark Arts. So that's the one area in > which, almost instinctively, he is particularly talented. Apart from > Quidditch." And I would think it is without even Harry noticing that he is becoming good at DADA. He has had a little extra tutoring. Lupin and the Patronus for example. Plus Moody/Crouch and the Imperius. Which still blows my mind why Voldemort's most faithful servant would want to teach Harry to resist an Imperius curse. Why on earth? Of course he didn't know Harry would instinctively resist it, but once he found out he didn't stop until Harry could resist it completely. Perhaps he was just toying with Harry, trying to see what he was made of? Anyway, I think it all boils down to Harry's instincts. The imperius curse is one example, his mastering the Patronus another. Of course, few wizards had such a close encounter with the very darkest of dark arts at the tender age of 15 months. Phyllis again: > Which leads me to ask: How would Voldemort *know* that Harry would > be more powerful without a wand? Ah, well, that all depends on how much of his unfocused magic Harry told Ron about. We know for certain he knows about the Aunt Marge incident. And what Harry tells Ron more often than not Scabbers overheard. And what Scabbers heard, Voldemort now knows. I'm sure Harry and Ron talk a lot more than just what we read about, so there's plenty of opportunity for Scabbers to overhear things. I'm sure he stored up everything he heard about Harry Potter--just in case. Richelle From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Wed Aug 21 22:49:34 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 22:49:34 -0000 Subject: Is Harry More Powerful Without a Wand? (WAS: Duel Harry) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43005 Phyllis wrote: > I'm of the opinion that this scene is just what JKR tells us it is: > Voldemort gives Harry his wand back "so there can be no doubt as to > which of us is the stronger". I don't see a need to read anything > more into this other than what I think is the obvious, which is that > Voldemort is an ego-maniac who needs to show his Death Eaters > that "the skinny little boy with no extraordinary magical talent" > will not be able to defeat the "greatest sorceror of all time" on a > level playing field. If Voldemort throws an AK at Harry while he is > still tied up and wandless, there would be lingering doubts among his > followers as to whether he could have killed Harry off if Harry had > not been at such an unfair advantage. There are many things in Voldemort that don't match up with the loony ego-maniac as you put it (generally called "evil overlord"). The DEs do not need demonstrated that Voldemort can beat Harry in any sort of fair ground. They know that he should be able to do so, they want to know whether the boy is *killable*, not if he's a bad duelist (which is obvious, since he's 14, after all). He managed to destroy Voldemort once for reasons unknown, but one of those reasons was *NOT* bacause at 15 months he was a better duelist than Voldemort. Voldemort must have faced many challenges and doubts while he was creating his fear power base, and I'd imagine that a few candidates to DE were used as examples to the rest of them as to what would happen if they got out of line. There would've been no "lingering doubts" if he had killed Harry immediately while still tied to the gravestone. What would a DE think? That his Master is too evil to play nice? They already know it. That he's a backstaber? They already know that too. If someone even hints that Voldemort should have given Harry a chance, Voldemort wouldn't have to kill him, any other DE would do so first. After all, they're no softies. Any DE that expreses any kind of doubt would probably blasted into smitherins by Voldemort himself, and it has probably happened a few times, or he wouldn't be as feared as the DE let to know (my theory is that some are faking it, but others must be truely afraid, especially the ones that are not so sure that Voldemort really needs them). According to your theory, Voldemort has to demonstrate he can beat Harry in a fair duel. If he wins, he demonstrates nothing: the DEs already know that he can beat everyone but Dumbledore. If he looses, there are lingering doubts, possibly a power coup, and certainly his entire network is lost. He has lost, thus, he's been defeated, since none of his DE trust him or his power anymore. This obviously hasn't happened. Thus, Voldemort wasn't trying to demonstrate that he's still the best duelist in the WW. What was he doing, then? Well, he was trying to get rid of Harry, that's for certain, but he wasn't all that sure he could kill him. If he's so much into the "play fair" situation, why did he kill Cedric right away? He could've saved him for later, and demonstrate he can take two at the same time. But he doesn't need to. The DEs already know he can take two underage, only partially trained wizards. They want to know if Harry can be killed. And this is because Voldemort and the DEs are positively scared of Harry. They don't understand how he could survive an AK when he was a baby, and they certainly are not going to try use it on Harry until they are sure it is not going to back-fire on *them*. Voldemort makes extra sure that the spells aren't rebounding from Harry before even trying to AK him. After all, a duel fair and square is a simple matter of who draws the faster AK, and yet Voldemort played with Harry. You could say it was out of cruelty, but then why did he stop where he did? Harry was still standing and the game was still fun. So, too much cruelty and too little at the same time. Only another interpretation makes sense: he was softening Harry and, as soon as he looked ready enough, Voldemort AKed him. Pity about the unexpected priori incantatum (the only thing that surprises Voledmort in the entire duel). > Grey Wolf also wrote: > > >The graveyard duel was carefully planned by Voldemort to reduce the > >danger to himself and maximize Harry's chances of dying. He > >does not hit Harry with an AK as soon as Harry arrives: if it > >rebounds and hits him or Peter, he's in trouble. > > Me again: > > The incantation Pettigrew uses when he takes Harry's blood is "Blood > of the foe, *forcibly* taken." I think the reason Harry isn't > immediately AK'd is that if he were dead, taking his blood wouldn't > be by *force* and Voldemort's recorporation potion wouldn't have > worked. The potion could have worked with the blood of any wizard. Why Harry, then? Because there is something that shields him from almost everything you can throw at him. And, since he's there all ready to go, why not slit his throat right away, instead of nicking him in the arm? Voldemort is not ready to kill him. They don't *think* they can kill him so easily, and they're not going to try. Harry is as difficult to kill as it can get, and Voldemort knows it because Peter, who has heard most of Harry's adventure while Scabbers the Weasley rat, knows. > Grey Wolf again: > > >He [Voldemort] doesn't even hit him with an AK as soon as he > >recorporates, but waits until he has made sure he can touch him, and > >yet still waits until he has debilitated Harry with Crucios for his > >body and Imperius for his mind. Notice that when Harry survives all > >this, Voldemort shows no surprise: he had already planned this. > > Me again: > > I think, given Voldemort's past experience with his AK rebounding off > Harry, Voldemort had to be *absolutely* sure that he had broken the > protection Lily left in Harry via the "old magic" before he would > risk touching him. Why did he make sure? Isn't he, in your theory, an evil megalomaniac supremely convinced of his own godlike powers? That's where the evil overlord idea really falls, in my eyes: an evil overlord believes he can kill anything, even after being beaten. An evil overlord believes that the potion will be enough, and that there is no need to continue playing. And if he wants to continue playing, out of sheer cruelty, he does not stop after only a cruciatus and a failed imperio. He keeps shooting cruciatus until his enemy begs for death. Voldemort, however, feels the need to make sure. He calls for back-up, in case the kid manages to scape once again (pity that the DEs aren't going to risk their own necks by actually *aiming* at the boy). He makes him listen to a horribly long speech (he also feeds him what possibly amounts to a lot of misinformation just in case he happens to escape once again). Finally, he prepares to shoot magics against him, so the first thing he does is anulate all his innate, unfocused magic by putting a wand in his hand, thus making him think in spells instead of having him use that magics that have saved him several times so far. He hits him with debilitating curses: Cruciatus, that leaves him in very bad condition almost instantly and Imperius, which allows Voldemort to estimate how much strength is left in the boy. He goads him into facing someone who Harry cannot possibly out-duel, Voldemort, without any protection at all (Voldemort doesn't want his spell to hit the gravestone again). And as soon as the boy seems to get the courage to make a counter spell, he shoots the AK. This is not the work of an evil overlord, it's the work of an extremelly careful planner, one that has examined step by step his movements that night and which has planned almost every possible problem. He couldn't guess priori incantatem would happen (his reaction to it seems to indicate that he knows nothing of that effect), but he knows that Harry could well escape from him: it has hapened before, after all. Harry has faced trolls, Quirrellmort, quidditch games, a basilisk, 100 dementors, giant spiders, etc, etc. I'd say that there is a fair chance that he manages to escape once again, and Voldemort must believe it too. > On the Imperius - I don't think Voldemort would have tried the > Imperius Curse if he knew in advance that Harry could resist it. > Back to my premise, I think Voldemort was > doing as much as possible to make Harry look like a fool and himself > as all-powerful (which is why he threw the Crucios and the Imperius > curses and made Harry's spine bend so he would bow - as I recall, the > Death Eaters laugh at this point). So I think Voldemort is actually > embarrassed when Harry resists the Imperius, but covers it up well so > that he doesn't admit his humiliation in front of his followers. He is? Voldemort is not too good at hiding his emotions. While he's very surprised at both the priori incantatum light chain and net and later it's effects on his wand ("Voldemort's eyes widened in shock"), he seems neither surprised nor particularly affected by Harry's resistance of the Imperius curse. Almost like he already expected this to happen, which stands to reason since he probably told Crouch Jr. to try it on Harry, to test how far the protection goes. After all, they know that the Imperius can be resisted and Voldemort doesn't want to enslave Harry, just kill him. He's not trying to humiliate him, because he has already rolling in the mud at his feet with the cruciatus. No, he's checking to see how much fight has Harry left in him. In fact, he decides that Harry posibly needs another dosis of Cruciatus, but Harry manages to dodge. Voldemort knows that if Harry doesn't face him, he'll probably forget about the wand and start using his real power, the power that once nearly killed him: the unfocused magic. So he taunts him to face him, and Harry willingly obeys, but as soon as he pops from behind the stone, Voldemort shoots the AK at him. Voldemort has run out of time, and if he doesn't finish with Harry right away, Harry will probably take flight. > Which leads me to ask: How would Voldemort *know* that Harry would > be more powerful without a wand? > > ~Phyllis Voldemort, just like Dumbledore, has always fought with information. Knowing what your enemies are up to is the greatest power in the universe, and Voldemort and Dumbledore have both demonstrated being very good at the game. Voldemort knows about Harry thanks to Peter, as well as through many other possible contacts. They had Crouch Sr, so they could get whatever information he had. And Crouch Jr. working as Harry's teacher. And Voldemort could have contacted any number of his DEs while staring at that chimeny in the Riddle house. No, lack of ionformation is not a malady that affects Voldemort. Hope that helps, Grey Wolf, proud defender of MAGIC DISHWASHER From Malady579 at hotmail.com Wed Aug 21 22:50:10 2002 From: Malady579 at hotmail.com (malady579) Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 22:50:10 -0000 Subject: Percy as Traitor?/ Harry's power In-Reply-To: <015801c2495d$0dda6d40$a8a1cdd1@istu757> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43006 Canon >> "Percy would never throw any of his family to the dementors," said Hermione severely. "I don't know," said Ron. "If he thought we were standing in the way of his career... Percy's really ambitious, you know..." << Richelle wrote: > To elaborate a little more on my thoughts of Percy's future, I think that he will side with Fudge and perhaps inadvertantly betray his family, or perhaps intentionally. < Me: It is amazing how much forshadowing JKR seems to be writing into GoF. So much that you are almost confused into what to believe she means to write to encourage or discourage us. Kind of like the spy game of Voldemort and Dumbledore, but that is a bit off topic. Percy has not been evil the whole book series. He just has a stong sense of needing to prove himself as great, and that is how I believe what Richelle is saying to be true. Percy, blinded his desire to be rich in accolades and honor is "fooled" into betray the good side. Percy is never out the hurt anyone or even misguide them. When Harry and Ron were choosing new courses on CoS, Percy gave them good advice to go towards thier strengths. Percy may be annoying and maybe even have a case of tunnel vision, but he is not evil and does not truely want to hurt his family or Potter. In CoS and PoA he followed Potter around as if to guard him. Like he could help, which leads to the next part... Richelle wrote: >> Plus Moody/Crouch and the Imperius. Which still blows my mind why Voldemort's most faithful servant would want to teach Harry to resist an Imperius curse. Why on earth? Of course he didn't know Harry would instinctively resist it, but once he found out he didn't stop until Harry could resist it completely. Perhaps he was just toying with Harry, trying to see what he was made of? << Me: I alway read that part as Moody/Crouch being rather amazed Harry could fight it so well and he had to find out how well. I also assumes he told evilbabyVoldemort about it and Voldemort wanted to try. Maybe Voldemort wanted to see how strong Harry's strength of character was for himself to gauge Harry's power for Plan A (as grey wolf has spelled out in his dissertation on the graveyard). I just think Moody/Crouch either: A: had that teacher facination and giddiness when a lesson goes well and a student helps prove a point (possible) B: was interesting for "business" reason to tell Voldemort later (more likely) c: loves casting dark curses on students with Dumbledore's permission especially on the one wizard that causes he precious Dark Lord Father to become the evilbabyVoldemort he is today (most likely to me really) Crouch Jr. is a facinating character to me because he enjoyed his time in Hogwarts so much. Toying with Draco the amazing bouncing ferret, frightening Karkaroff around the place, or even dancing at the Yule Ball, Moody/Crouch played his tight-roping acting ability extremely well and seamless in making all in Hogwarts (and us the reader) believe he was Moody while also be completely in the Bad with Voldemort and never betraying thier master plan to be evil personified. Seems there was two oscar-worthy actors at Hogwarts... Richelle also wrote: >> Ah, well, that all depends on how much of his unfocused magic Harry told Ron about. We know for certain he knows about the Aunt Marge incident. And what Harry tells Ron more often than not Scabbers overheard. And what Scabbers heard, Voldemort now knows. I'm sure Harry and Ron talk a lot more than just what we read about, so there's plenty of opportunity for Scabbers to overhear things. I'm sure he stored up everything he heard about Harry Potter--just in case. << My last point: Seems with the information war at hand, it does depend on how much Scabbers told Voldy. Scabbers got lucky, extremely lucky, that Ron because best friends with Harry then. That was a stroke of luck he could not of predicted. Seems Wormtail turned out the be more useful that Voldy even intended or expected. I think that is all. Melody From francienyc at yahoo.com Thu Aug 22 01:28:53 2002 From: francienyc at yahoo.com (francienyc) Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 01:28:53 -0000 Subject: Is Harry More Powerful Without a Wand? (WAS: Duel Harry) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43007 Grey Wolf wrote: "The DEs do not need demonstrated that Voldemort can beat Harry in any sort of fair ground. They know that he should be able to do so, they want to know whether the boy is *killable*, not if he's a bad duelist....Voldemort must have faced many challenges and doubts while he was creating his fear power base, and I'd imagine that a few candidates to DE were used as examples to the rest of them as to what would happen if they got out of line. There would've been no "lingering doubts" if he had killed Harry immediately while still tied to the gravestone." But there would have been lingering doubts, because the DEs aren't sure that Voldemort can beat Harry. After all, Harry bested Voldemort when he was only a baby, and then twice more. Now, the Chamber of Secrets episode doesn't seem to be common knowledge, since not even Voldemort mentions it in his lengthy speech. Yet even without counting that one, Voldemort still has something to prove. We learn from Quirrell at the end of Sorcerer's Stone "I met him 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. There is only power, and those too weak to see it....Since then, I have served him faithfully" (p. 291). So we see that Voldemort's whole premise of power is amoral. Power is outside of good and evil, it is in fact, a law unto itself. Therefore, to truly be seen as the most powerful wizard, Voldemort has to defeat Harry fair and square, without a single question. He admits this himself, acknowledging to the Death Eaters "And here he is...the boy you all believed had been my downfall...." (GoF 657). He knows that they, like the rest of the wizarding world, see Harry as Voldemort's Achilles' heel. He then performs the Cruciatus Curse, but stops, and explains to them all "Harry Potter escaped my by a lucky chance. And I am now going to prove my power by killing him, here and now, in front of you all, when there is no Dumbledore to help him, and no mother to die for him. I will give him his chance. He will be allowed to fight, and you will be left in no doubt which of us is the stronger." Voldemort begins to use Harry as a mere "example" the way he does with Avery earlier. However, Harry deserves special consideration because of what happened before. The victory must be completely decisive or Voldemort's power, the basis of his beliefs (as opposed to good and evil) will not be completely re-established. On another note, which will eventually come back to my first point, Phyllis, I think, wondered why Fake Moody teaches Harry to throw off the Imperius Curse. I felt it was kind of evident--the Imperius Curse had been Crouch Jr's imprisonment for years, and thus he has a strong hatred for it and does not want to see anyone forced under it (the exception of course being his father, for revenge). Crouch Jr. is a very interesting character as Death Eater's go because he develops his own system of morals and ethics separate from Voldemort. He hates attacking behind an opponent's back (thus we see Malfoy the bouncing ferret) and a Death Eater who walked free (hence his loathing for Karkaroff). He metes out his own form of justice accordingly, without waiting for orders. Of course, the fact that of his own "free will" (ironic phrase to use with regards to Crouch Jr.) makes him most dangerous because he has come to the conclusion that Voldemort is somehow right, unlike Quirrell and Wormtail who were forced into service. Incidentally, Crouch Jr.'s loathing of a lack of fair play could be part of why Voldemort chooses to duel with Harry. I get the feeling that Crouch Jr. is a law unto himself, and if Voldemort went at odds with it he might loose one of his strongest (both in philosophy and actions) supporters. (Inhaling now) Caroline From francienyc at yahoo.com Thu Aug 22 02:24:23 2002 From: francienyc at yahoo.com (francienyc) Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 02:24:23 -0000 Subject: Harry and Black in Shrieking Shack In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43008 With regards to Harry using his wand to kill in the Shreiking Shack, I think Christi's "adrenaline magic" theory is an interesting one. Obviously, Harry doesn't know about Avada Kedavra so he can't kill Black in the most "common" way. However, I think the "how" is not the important part, it's that Harry wants to kill Black in the first place. From a literary standpoint, these books are all in 3rd person subjective point of view, and so we are limited to seeing what Harry sees although he doesn't tell the story himself. Ergo, Harry only knows that he wants to kill Black, he doesn't have a plan because he's not thinking but feeling, and so we only see his emotional reaction. I don't want to beat a dead horse, but I think that it's important to look at the mechanics of the book i.e. how the story is told. If we realize it's all from Harry's point of view only, what may sometimes seem as an inconsistency could just be Harry's limited perspective and knowledge. Caroline From skelkins at attbi.com Thu Aug 22 02:58:40 2002 From: skelkins at attbi.com (ssk7882) Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 02:58:40 -0000 Subject: Crouch, the duel, and the Imperius (WAS: Percy Traitor...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43009 Melody wrote: > Crouch Jr. is a facinating character to me because he enjoyed his > time in Hogwarts so much. Yes! Yes, yes, yes! Ahem. Erm, well. Sorry about the...enthusiasm there. It's just that Crouch Jr. really is one of my all-time favorite characters, and the major reason for that is the sheer amount of *fun* that he has, all the way through _GoF_. I find it curiously refreshing. Endearing, even. It somehow just resonates with me. I love the malicious glee with which he conducts his entire masquerade: all of those double-edged statements, all of that *payback.* And I love scenes like the Yule Ball, too, places where he's having a (relatively) innocent good time doing things like gallumphing around the dance floor with Professor Sinistra. He's an arrested adolescent who has been enslaved for over a decade, and now he's finally getting to act out in a big, big way -- and he is just having a *blast* with it. And really, now. I mean, how can you *not* love a character like that? And besides, he was a good teacher. On which topic... Richelle asked: > Plus Moody/Crouch and the Imperius. Which still blows my mind why > Voldemort's most faithful servant would want to teach Harry to > resist an Imperius curse. Do you really think that Crouch was Voldemort's most faithful servant? He didn't put up a very good showing at his sentencing. Really, the only way that I can see for Crouch to stake a *legitimate* claim on "most faithful servant" would be under a variant of JOdel's theory in which he willingly accepted the role of sacrificial lamb in order to help the DEs to destroy his father's political career. Even then, though, I'd say that his co-conspirators, the Couple Assumed To Be The Lestranges, ought to be awarded just as many faithfulness points, if not even more, for the part that they played in the entire charade. But I digress. The question here is: why would Crouch want to teach Harry to resist the Imperius? Well, for one thing, it was his job. He needed to be impersonating Moody, and Dumbledore asked "Moody" to teach the Unforgiveables to the fourth year students. Crouch couldn't very well have refused, could he? What possible reason could he have given for doing so? And besides, it must have been quite a kick for him, don't you think? To have been actually *sanctioned* to cast Unforgivable Curses on a bunch of schoolchildren -- and sanctioned to do so by *Dumbledore,* no less? Melody wrote of Crouch that: > [he] loves casting dark curses on students with Dumbledore's > permission especially on the one wizard that causes he precious > Dark Lord Father to become the evilbabyVoldemort he is today. Sure. It must have been absolutely irresistable, I'd say. Quite the perverse thrill. He did have quite the sense of irony, after all. But I agree with Richelle that Crouch really does seem to have gone above and beyond the call of duty when it came to training Harry to fight off the Imperius. She wrote: > Why on earth? Of course he didn't know Harry would instinctively > resist it, but once he found out he didn't stop until Harry could > resist it completely. Nope. He didn't. Over the years, people have suggested a number of reasons why this might be the case. I personally believe all of the below to be true. 1) Crouch was a method actor. Crouch's masquerade must have been very good indeed to have fooled Dumbledore for nearly an entire year. He was rather deeply in character. To say the least. The real Alastor Moody would presumably have been thrilled to death to see a student prove so adept at fighting off the Imperius Curse, and would have gone out of his way to encourage that student and help him to develop his talent. Crouch-as-Moody therefore did the same. 2) Crouch hated the Imperius Curse. He spent over a decade underneath the Imperius Curse himself, remember. I'd say that Crouch just plain *hated* the Imperius and that it gave him a deep sense of satisfaction to see anyone, even an enemy, prove so adept at fighting it off. I also think that in many ways, Crouch found it very easy to identify with his adolescent students. He was himself very young at the time of his arrest, after all, and from his behavior in the Pensieve, he would seem to have been rather emotionally immature as well. Thereafter, he was first in Azkaban and then under the Imperius Curse, neither of which are states conducive to any real emotional development or growth. In his Veritaserum confession, both his assumption that his father never really loved him and his desperation to view Voldemort as a surrogate father figure always come across to me as strikingly childish, really pathetically so. Crouch was himself trapped in an arrested state of adolescence, and I think that this may have led him to on some level *identify* with Harry in those DADA classes. He was reading Harry's success in throwing off the Imperius Curse as his *own* success in throwing off the Imperius Curse -- and he was reacting accordingly. 3) Crouch's plan depended on Harry winning the Triwizard Tournament. The Ever So Clever Eloise suggested this explanation back in February, and the more I think about it, the more compelling I find it to be. In order for Crouch's scheme to work as planned, Harry *must* win the Triwizard Tournament, a contest in which we are told that "cheating" is traditional. One of Harry's major opponents in this competition is Victor Krum, who has been trained at Durmstrang (where it is rumored that students are taught the Dark Arts), and who is also the pet pupil of Igor Karkaroff, an ex Death Eater who clearly wants Durmstrang's champion to win the competition *very* badly. Crouch may well have feared that Krum (or Karkaroff himself) would at some point place Harry under the Imperius Curse in order to prevent him from winning the Tournament. After all, later on Crouch himself will use *just* this technique to weaken the chances of both Krum and Diggory. People do tend to ascribe to others the same sorts of plans, motives, and tactics that they themseles are the most prone to utilize. Once Crouch discovered that Harry stood a chance of being able to resist the Curse on his own, then he would have had a strong vested interest in helping Harry to develop this talent. It would have been one less thing for Crouch himself to worry about when it came time for him to be scurrying around behind the scenes, working to ensure Harry's victory. 4) Crouch was a born teacher. Melody wrote: > [he] had that teacher facination and giddiness when a lesson goes > well and a student helps prove a point. Yup. Crouch was a very good student himself in his day, and I think that if his life had gone differently, he would have made an excellent professor. Harry's class is by no means the only one raving about "Moody's" DADA lessons. The entire school is excited by them. Sadistic nutcase though Crouch may be, he's also a very good teacher, and I do tend to read that as a reflection of Crouch's own character, rather than merely as a reflection of Moody's. I always get the impression that teaching Moody's DADA class was just about Crouch's favorite part of his entire masquerade. I think that he was born to teach, and that like all good teachers, he took a genuine and instinctive pleasure in helping students succeed at difficult tasks. So that's why *I* think that Crouch was so dedicated to teaching Harry to throw off the Imperius Curse. But of course, if you don't like my own preferred "all of the above" answer, you can always mix and match to suit your own tastes. ;-) Melody wrote: > I also assume he told evilbabyVoldemort about it and Voldemort > wanted to try. Hmmmm. You know, I used to reject this notion that Crouch reported Harry's talent at resisting the Imperius Curse back to Voldemort. I always figured that had Voldemort really known about Harry's talent in this arena, then he would *never* have risked losing face in front of all of his Death Eaters by giving Harry the opportunity to resist him during that "duel" in the graveyard. Now, however, I'm beginning to change my mind. Looking back over the graveyard scene, one of the things that I find rather striking about the failed Imperius is how utterly unsurprised by it Voldemort seems to be. His Death Eaters are taken aback, but he himself is not. He is not described as looking in the least bit startled, nor alarmed nor astonished, nor dismayed, nor even particularly angered. We see him be all of those things later on in the scene, when he is thwarted by the Priori Incantatem, but when Harry resists his Imperius Curse, his response (said "quietly") reveals no particular surprise. Of course, he could just have been putting up a good front. But I don't think so. Voldemort has not, elsewhere in canon, shown himself to be in the least bit skilled at putting up a good front when he finds himself (as he constantly does!) thwarted by unforeseen events. He just doesn't take that sort of thing well. He doesn't usually respond to it "quietly." Instead, he generally screams and rants and raves and otherwise make an appalling spectacle out of himself. Voldemort isn't exactly one of those "roll with the punches" sorts of Evil Overlords. So I'm beginning to come around to believing that Crouch really did give him advance warning, and that just as Melody suggests, Voldemort cast that Imperius Curse mainly to gratify his own curiosity about the real extent of Harry's ability to resist. After all, Barty Crouch was shipped off to prison at the age of nineteen and then spent the rest of his life as a mind-controlled zombie with an invisibility cloak thrown over his head. His testimony that Harry had this amazing Imperius resistance might therefore have been something that Voldemort felt disinclined to take at face value. I suspect that he wanted to see for himself. -- Elkins From skelkins at attbi.com Thu Aug 22 03:08:01 2002 From: skelkins at attbi.com (ssk7882) Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 03:08:01 -0000 Subject: "Despiadado" Crouch and HumanRightsMartyr!Wilkes (WAS: Rosier and Wilkes are Dea Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43010 In Message #40967, Eileen (after having been left a choice canon by the ghost of Evan Rosier), wrote: > She looks down at the canon Rosier has left her. It reads (in > translation from my Spanish edition, as well as I can make it): > "Crouch used violence against violence, and authorized the use of > the unforgivable curses on suspects. I say he became as cruel and > "despiadado" as those on the dark side." > But, it's always bugged listies, hasn't it, that the aurors didn't > have the authorization to use "Avada Kedavra" in the first place. It's never particularly bugged me. As discussions of Harry and Sirius in the Shrieking Shack show, there are plenty of other ways to kill people, and I suspect that the aurors were always authorized to use them in self-defense, or to protect the innocent. > How is killing someone in a magical shoot-out evil? It isn't, very. Or at least it's a highly justifiable evil. But I don't really think that authorizing the Aurors to kill in self-defense was what Crouch did, and I don't think that Avada Kedavra was really the Unforgiveable Curse that Sirius was talking about, either. A long long time ago, in a galaxy far far away (well...okay, it was actually just in April, in message #37476), Eileen posted a rousing series of Crouch Sr. apologetics in her attempt to coax us all into trying a bite of her CRAB CUSTARD ("Classy, Rich, Ambitious, Bold: Crouch's Unsung Sexiness Tempts All Raunchy Damsels"). In the course of the ensuing discussion, this pernicious notion -- that Crouch's measures consituted nothing more dire than authorizing the aurors to kill in self-defense -- came up more than a few times, and I wanted very badly to address it even back then. Sadly, however, I never got the chance. Now that I've been handed a second opportunity, though, I will happily help Eileen to man this canon, in the hopes of blasting that nasty crab-flavored herring out of the water for once and for all. Here is the full passage (written in English) to which Eileen referred: "The Aurors were given new powers -- powers to kill rather than capture, for instance. And I wasn't the only one who was handed straight to the dementors without trial. Crouch fought violence with violence, and authorized the use of the Unforgivable Curses against suspects. I would say he became as ruthless and cruel as many on the Dark Side." Okay. Two things here. First thing. Sirius does *not* say "The Aurors were given new powers -- powers to kill, for instance." What he does say is: "powers to kill _rather than capture._" [emphasis mine] In other words, what Crouch authorized his aurors to do was not to kill in self-defense. It was not to kill in bloody magical shoot-outs. It was not to use lethal force when such was necessary to provide immediate protection to the innocent. And it was not to kill when capture was impossible. What Crouch authorized his aurors to do was to kill *rather* than to capture. In other words, they were authorized to kill people who could instead have been apprehended. That's serious. The Aurors are not judges, but investigators; their job is not to convict, but to investigate and to apprehend. As shoddy and as corrupt as the Wizarding World's justice system may be, it nonetheless does exist. There are courts, and there are trials, and people are sometimes acquitted of the charges against them. We are told that a good number of the DEs stood trial and were acquitted after Voldemort's fall. Presumably at least one or two genuinely innocent people have managed this as well. So what Crouch authorized his aurors to do was to kill *suspects,* people against whom absolutely nothing had yet been proven in a court of law. He authorized them to kill on the basis of nothing more than suspicion -- or even their whim. In short, he authorized them to kill anyone they damn well felt like, with little or no accountability to anyone for their actions. Very reassuring. The second thing I would like to point out here is that Sirius lists the aurors' license to kill as a *separate* issue from that of their license to use the Unforgivables. First he mentions that the aurors were granted license to kill rather than to capture. Then he mentions that many people (other than he himself) were sent to prison without trial. And *then* he states that Crouch authorized the use of the Unforgiveables. Finally, he concludes that Crouch had become "as ruthless and cruel as many on the Dark Side." I have never assumed that the AK was the Unforgivable Curse to which Sirius was alluding here. He'd already covered that base when he cited the license to kill. No, I have always assumed that the Cruciatus -- and to a lesser extent, the Imperius -- were the relevant Unforgivables here. Eileen: > I'm beginning to suspect that Crouch authorized the use of the > unforgiveable curses on people already taken into custody. Yes. Or, for that matter, even on people who in the end were *never* taken into custody. That, at any rate, was my instinctive understanding of what that passage meant when I first read it. Now, I freely admit that my reading of this scene may have been biased by the fact that not only have I spent some time working for Amnesty International, but that I also knew full well while reading GoF that its author had as well. Nonetheless, that was *precisely* how I interpreted Sirius' words in "Padfoot Returns." Crouch authorized his aurors to use torture and mind-control, and he authorized them to use these techniques even against people who had never been convicted (or even necessarily accused) of any crime. Hence, "descended to the level of the Death Eaters." Again, very reassuring. No. I did not like that Crouch Sr. I did not like him at all. And I am *very* suspicious of that "very popular" martyr-auror Frank Longbottom, too. Eileen asked: > Where in canon do we see the aurors overstepping their bounds? An excellent questiom. Sirius is clearly no fan of the aurors, but even he acknowledges that Moody was all right. Moody was the Good Auror. Didn't kill if he could avoid it. Never descended to the level of the Death Eaters. So who *were* those other aurors? Who were those guys who were running around killing suspects rather than bothering to arrest them, practicing their Unforgivables on people who had never even stood trial? Could their zeal have made them "very popular?" It does rather beg the question, doesn't it? > What about Wilkes? Yes. What *about* Wilkes? It's about time that poor old Wilkes got some speculative attention, don't you think? I mean, the poor man! (Or woman. After all, the possibility still *does* exist that Wilkes might have been a girl named Florence who used to snog Snape behind the greenhouses...) A member of Snape's old gang, killed by aurors in the year before Voldemort's fall, and yet half the time s/he gets left *out* when people try to draw up a DE roll call. (Witness message #42806, for example.) No first name, no backstory, not even a *gender!* And Karkaroff didn't even bother to try ratting him-or-her out to the Minstry. Yes, Wilkes is the Forgotten Death Eater, to be sure. S/he's even more neglected than dear old Nott, or than my boy Avery. > Was Wilkes killed after he was apprehended? Well, it's certainly a truism that once you start letting your police do things like practicing torture on suspects and killing without having to stand inquiry for it, then an inordinate number of people generally *do* start mysteriously dying in custody. Funny how that works, isn't it? > We've already speculated that much of Snape's bitterness stems from > the fact that he was forced to betray his friends. If Wilkes was > killed this way, that could have been a hard blow. > And if Frank Longbottom was involved... As Eileen knows full well, I have been plugging for "Wilkes dead at Frank Longbottom's hands" ever since my delurk. It would explain much. It would go a long way towards explaining the particularly excessive (and strangely impractical) savagery of the Lestranges' treatment of the Longbottoms. They were after information, yes. But they could also have been after payback. It would also go a long way towards explaining Snape's difficulties in dealing calmly and rationally with Neville. In message #41873, Porphyria makes a strong case for the idea (which I support wholeheartedly) that Snape reacts so badly to Neville in part because he views Neville as a representative of his own weakness. Others have pointed out that Neville is an irritant because he is disruptive to Snape's potions class, and because his dangerous incompetence places other students at physical risk. That Snape simply doesn't suffer fools gladly is certainly a factor here. So is the fact that Snape enjoys bullying -- and Neville is prime bully-bait. A few people like to argue that Snape responds to Neville with guilt because he failed to protect the Longbottoms. I myself have more than once defended the notion that it is a manifestation of Snape's survivor guilt: every time he looks at Neville, he is forcibly reminded that two of his old school friends are still gibbering their sanity away in Azkaban. But it does occur to me that there might be something even more immediate going on there. Snape responds to Neville with uncharacteristic temper -- and uncharacteristic crudity, as well -- at his *very first potions class.* His verbal abuse of Harry and Hermione is calm, cold, deliberate, quite sophisticated. With Neville, all that he can manage is a snarl of pure rage. It is a rather striking loss of control for Snape, I've always thought, and it happens before he has really had much opportunity to observe Neville's behavior. It's only the first day of class. He has not in fact yet had much opportunity to learn what a chronic bungler Neville is, nor how timid, nor how weak. And yet he shows a striking lack of self-control when it comes to the boy. It does make you wonder, doesn't it? Sons in the Potterverse do have this strange tendency to take after their fathers physically. Who is Snape *really* seeing, every time that he looks at Neville in potions class? While Snape did eventually turn on his old Hogwarts classmates, there is some evidence to suggest that he's still not altogether comfortable dealing with the people who actually *killed* them. He is afraid of Moody. Finally, if Eileen is correct in her suspicion that there was something untoward about Wilkes' death, then that would finally provide us with a canonical illustration of the excesses of those rotten aurors. I do think that we may well be handed harder evidence of that one of these days. The series is becoming more morally complex as it progresses, after all. And JKR *did* once work for Amnesty International. -- Elkins (who was highly disappointed that when OTC hosted that "who is more evil?" poll a few months back, Crouch Sr. wasn't even listed among the *options*) From divaclv at aol.com Thu Aug 22 03:14:53 2002 From: divaclv at aol.com (c_voth312) Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 03:14:53 -0000 Subject: Percy as Traitor? In-Reply-To: <2668782643.20020821104311@mindspring.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43011 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Dave Hardenbrook wrote: > But would he go as far as to throw Arthur and Molly (as members of > "the old crowd") into Azkaban, in order to remove any barriers to > his own rise to power? > > Of course I'm doubtful there's even going to *be* an Azkaban after > Book 5, if Voldy plans to "burst it open"... > > -- > Dave Maybe not necessarily because he thinks they are holding him back, but certainly because he believes in the justice of it. Percy is something of a stickler where rules are concerned--if he sees his family in conflict with the recognized authority (read: the Ministry), I'm almost certain he would side with the latter. ~Christi From porphyria at mindspring.com Thu Aug 22 03:32:26 2002 From: porphyria at mindspring.com (Porphyria) Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 23:32:26 -0400 Subject: Wandless magic -- is is Dark in here or is it me? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43012 Since we've been discussing wandless magic on the list I thought I'd take this chance to bring up a few things on my mind about it. Just to make this clear, I'm using Grey Wolf's distinction and only discussing focused magic used on purpose by adult wizards; this post isn't about Harry's accidental, unfocused magic. JKR stated in interview "You can do unfocused and uncontrolled magic without a wand (for instance when Harry blows up Aunt Marge) but to do really good spells, yes, you need a wand." However, as we've been observing, that isn't actually the case, and in fact it's contradicted early on in the first book. Was she just not thinking when she answered this question or was she being a bit misleading on purpose? What I really want to do here is advance a theory that Wandless Magic is a Dark Art. I certainly can't prove this with canonical evidence, but what I will try to show you is that the purposeful wandless magic we have seen is very often problematic in one way or another, and is perhaps held in suspicion by the powers that be. So here are all the examples I can think of: 1. The broom-bucking jinx and it's counter-curse. When Harry's broom starts trying to buck him off at the first Quidditch match in PS/SS, Hagrid remarks, "Can't nothing interfere with a broomstick except powerful Dark magic." This implies that there is something unusual about the spell being cast; it's not just an "Accio Broomstick" or anything commonly taught. Evidently the technique of jinxing is well-known; as Hermione insists, and Ron backs her up, a muttered incantation and unbroken eye contact are the signs of this type of spell. Presumably the mental focus or the incantation itself are more closely guarded secrets. So it's not much of a surprise that the two people involved in the broom jinx are both familiar with Dark magic. Quirrell is the DADA instructor who Hagrid describes as "brilliant" and Snape is famous for knowing a lot about the Dark Arts and, as we come to find out, probably practiced them quite a bit during his DE tenure. Presumably Snape's knowledge of curses also involves a knowledge of counter-curses. I find it interesting that the first really obvious wandless spell we see is heavily associated with the Dark Arts and two powerful Dark Arts-using wizards. What is significant about the broom-bucking jinx is not just that it's potentially harmful but that it's also sneaky. It's much harder to notice who's casting this spell and impossible to trace by the usual legal methods such as a Prior Incantato. It makes me wonder if incantation-based spells are considered fishy and quite possibly only known to those who have sought out forbidden knowledge. 2. Miscellaneous little spells. a) At the end of PS/SS, Quirrell snaps his fingers and ropes spring out; shortly after he released Harry from his bonds with a clap. b) Also in PS/SS, Dumbledore claps his hands to change the banner colors. c) At the beginning of PoA, Tim, the ancient innkeeper of the Leaky Cauldron, starts a fire with a snap. d) In the Shrieking Shack scene in PoA, Snape clicks his fingers to summon Lupin's ropes to his hand. Can anyone think of anything else? To my mind Dumbledore does usually use a wand when he's doing magic, but if I've left something out let me know. It's possible that some wizard objects are charmed to respond to a gesture: the Great Hall banners and Tom's fireplace could have been charmed ahead of time to change states in response to a clap or snap. (Similarly, one doesn't need a wand to fly a broom or use other magical objects.) It's also quite probable that an older wizard (Tom is really old) can do simple spells without a wand, especially spells they do every day, like light a fire. And of course Dumbledore possesses powers that he doesn't even use, so banner-switching is probably a cinch for him. Of course in the other two examples we are back to Snape and Quirrell, and I can't help but wonder if it's telling that the rope-trick wandless charms are practiced by wizards we know to be particularly familiar with Dark magic. 3. Animagus transformation. We've seen over and over again that this powerful, advanced spell does not require a wand, neither in McGonagall, Sirius or Peter. And I'm not suggesting that Animagus magic is inherently Dark, but we do know that it' s heavily controlled by the Ministry, and in fact four of the five Animagi we know about are technically criminal Animagi. Lupin says: "Your father and Sirius here were the cleverest students in the school, and lucky they were, because the Animagus transformation can go horribly wrong -- one reason the Ministry keeps a close watch on those attempting to do it." What are the other reasons? I doubt they're all altruistic. Clearly the Ministry wants to keep tabs on these people, especially given how easy it is to commit a crime or avoid punishment when an Animagus. The Ministry holds Animagi in suspicion. Plus, Lupin's phrasing makes it sound like the legal procedure is to obtain authorization from the Ministry prior to attempting to become an Animagi, so I wonder if the Ministry ever forbids it in certain wizards it doesn't trust. 4. Apparition First, there is some doubt over whether or not Apparition requires a wand. I'm going to argue it doesn't: I can't find any description of anyone actually using a wand to Apparate and I found a few hints that it does not. Here are a couple of quotes from the QWC in GoF: "[Bagman] waved, Barty Crouch nodded curtly, and both of them Disapparated. " "Salesmen were Apparating every few feet, carrying trays and pushing carts full of extraordinary merchandise." In each of these examples wand use is conspicuous by its absence; Bagman is described as waving and Crouch as nodding, but no one waves a wand. Also if salesmen can Apparate carrying trays and so forth, it sounds hands-free to me. Anyway, Apparition is the only other type of spell we know of besides Animagus transformation for which the Ministry requires prior authorization. Merely trying to Apparate without a license is illegal and subject to fines. While I do accept that part of the reason for this is that Apparition can harm the Apparating wizard and other people, this is true of lots of other magic. Wizards hex each other all the time without needing a permit. So I suspect the Ministry has other reasons for wanting to keep tabs on who can use this spell and who can't. I also wouldn't be surprised to learn that the Ministry has developed some method of tracking when someone Apparates and that's why Sirius can't do it. 5. Potions Let's not forget the obvious. :-) Does one need magic to brew potions? Well, in Snape's words: "As there is little foolish wand-waving here, many of you will hardly believe this is magic." Now, this is Snape doing the talking, so surely he's being disdainful here. He can't possibly mean 'many of you will hardly believe this is magic -- and you'd be right!' Given his usual attitude, he means 'many of you will hardly believe this is magic -- because you're a bunch of idiots.' Between this and the evidence of Neville blowing up cauldrons with his own powerful, unfocused magic, I'd say Potions certainly does involve magic, and it's not just glorified cooking or chemistry with magical ingredients. Well, since Hogwarts students take 7 years of required Potions courses, potion making can't possibly be Dark, can it? Then again, look who's teaching it. Even if we assume that Snape would rather be teaching DADA (although I think there's plenty of evidence that he's quite fond of Potions), there is no explanation in canon for why a Dark Arts afficionado who didn't make the DADA cut would have to settle for teaching *Potions per se.* And of course Snape isn't simply settling for Potions; Lupin makes clear he's one of the best at it. Is there any relation between the two disciplines? Is there some reason why Snape, famous for his curses, would also gravitate toward and excel at Potions? Well, Snape makes Potions sound like a Dark Art: "I can teach you how to bottle fame, brew glory, even stopper death..." Even if this is simply how Snape sees it, or as Marina once pointed out, Snape is addressing his comments to the Slytherin in the class who would be intrigued by this type of thing, there remains the fact that Snape is a little defensive about Potions and considers it misunderstood. It makes you wonder if he is merely reacting to the sluggishness of his past students or if there is some professional WW prejudice against potion making. Here's more from his opening speech: "You are here to learn the subtle science and exact art of potion making....I don't expect you will really understand the beauty of the softly simmering cauldron with its shimmering fumes, the delicate power of liquids that creep through human veins, bewitching the mind, ensnaring the senses" As we know, Potions does not involve "foolish wand-waving" which Snape seems to be criticizing on account of it's obviousness. Potions are "subtle," they simmer "softly," their power is "delicate," they "creep" through veins, etc. Potions seem to share the same sneaky, underhanded status as wandless jinxes and transformations; they lack the honest, forthright, unconcealable visibility of wand use. This might indicate the aspect of Potions that appeals to Snape. The Ministry has it's nose stuck in potions too; they strictly regulate Veritaserum use. What I wonder is whether advanced Potions and certain Dark Arts require the same skill set; the same (presumably difficult) ability to channel magic without the help of a wand. Is it a similar skill used in Apparition and Animagus transformation? It would certainly be a scary talent if it could be fostered for other uses. Well, while I can't prove wandless magic is Dark per se, there certainly seems enough evidence to say that, apart from the most trivial spells, it is considered problematic, possibly suspicious and worth tracking by the Ministry. I also wonder if it will be addressed explicitly in future books. JKR does skim over things in early books only to discuss them later; we see McGonagall transform into a cat early in Book One but Animagic isn't discussed until Book Three, so it's possible our wandless jinxes will return. Today Phyllis said: > And I then > remembered yet another interview where JKR said that we might be > seeing something in future books about a character being able to do > magic with his/her eyes. I don't remember this myself, but I'd certainly love to see the link if anyone can provide it. The only interview quote about eyes I can remember was when JKR said that Lily's green eyes would be important, but she didn' t say why. It would certainly be interesting if eyes and wandless magic did become an issue later on, since we already have canonical evidence that eye contact is needed for certain wandless spells. What do you think, sirs? ~Porphyria [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From rusalka at ix.netcom.com Thu Aug 22 11:34:52 2002 From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants) Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 11:34:52 -0000 Subject: Wandless magic -- is is Dark in here or is it me? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43013 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Porphyria wrote: > What I wonder is whether advanced Potions and certain Dark Arts require > the same skill set; the same (presumably difficult) ability to channel > magic without the help of a wand. Is it a similar skill used in Apparition > and Animagus transformation? It would certainly be a scary talent if it > could be fostered for other uses. And remember that the Darkest spell we've seen in the books so far -- the one that resurrected Voldemort in the graveyard -- involves a potion. But it also involves a certain amount of wand-waving and an incantation. It seems like some sort of combination of Potions and traditional spell-casting. Which does seem to suggest that Potions and Dark Arts are closely related somehow. Marina rusalka at ix.netcom.com From bdmorrp at budget.state.ny.us Thu Aug 22 13:55:35 2002 From: bdmorrp at budget.state.ny.us (erisedstraeh2002) Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 13:55:35 -0000 Subject: Link to Eyes Doing Magic and Harry's Wandless Power (WAS: Dark Wandless Magic) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43014 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Porphyria wrote: > Quoting me >(Phyllis/erisedstraeh2002): And I then remembered yet another >interview where JKR said that we might be seeing something in future >books about a character being able to do magic with his/her eyes. Porphyria responded: > I don't remember this myself, but I'd certainly love to see the > link if anyone can provide it. The only interview quote about eyes > I can remember was when JKR said that Lily's green eyes would be > important, but she didn't say why. It would certainly be > interesting if eyes and wandless magic did become an issue later > on, since we already have canonical evidence that eye contact is > needed for certain wandless spells. Me again: Here's the link: http://www.geocities.com/aberforths_goat/Fall_2000_BBC_Newsround.htm And here's the snip from the interview: BBC: "Now, can I ask you: are there any special wizarding powers in your world that depend on the wizard using their eyes to do something? Bit like " JKR: "Why do you want to know this?" BBC: "I just vaguely wondered." JKR: "Why?" BBC: "Well because everyone always goes on about how Harry's got Lily Potter's eyes?" JKR: "Aren't you smart? There is something, maybe, coming about that. I'm going to say no more. Very clever." ~Phyllis From bdmorrp at budget.state.ny.us Thu Aug 22 14:44:51 2002 From: bdmorrp at budget.state.ny.us (erisedstraeh2002) Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 14:44:51 -0000 Subject: Is Harry More Powerful Without a Wand? (WAS: Duel Harry) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43015 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "grey_wolf_c" wrote: > The DEs do not need demonstrated that Voldemort can beat Harry in > any sort of fair ground. They know that he should be able to do so, > they want to know whether the boy is *killable*, not if he's a bad > duelist (which is obvious, since he's 14, after all). There > would've been no "lingering doubts" if he had killed Harry > immediately while still tied to the gravestone. If he > [Voldemort] wins, he demonstrates nothing: the DEs > already know that he can beat everyone but Dumbledore. Thus, > Voldemort wasn't trying to demonstrate that he's still the best > duelist in the WW. Now me: I didn't intend to suggest that Voldemort was trying to prove that he's the best duelist in the wizarding world. What I'm trying to argue is that Voldemort had a need to prove, in front of his Death Eaters, that he could kill Harry Potter fair and square, so there would be no "lingering doubt" among his DEs as to "which of us is the stronger" (GoF p. 658). I think this is a combination of Voldemort's overinflated ego as well as a need to redeem himself in front of his followers. Most of his followers, after all, claimed they'd been Imperio'd after Voldemort's fall from power. I don't agree that the DEs already know he can beat everyone but Dumbledore. Everyone refers to Harry Potter as Voldemort's "downfall," including Voldemort himself "You know, of course, that they have called this boy my downfall" (GoF p. 652). I think Voldemort now needs to prove that he is stronger than Harry by killing Harry on a level playing field to restore his DE power base. This also explains why he consistently doesn't allow the DEs to kill Harry: "Stand aside! I will kill him! He is mine!" (GoF p. 669), even when the DEs are in a better position to kill Harry. This isn't the only way Voldemort is trying to restore his power base. He's also using fear, control, intimidation, guilt and pain. Examples: he lets Wormtail writhe in pain for awhile before he restores his hand. He hits Avery with the Crucatius curse. He guilts the DEs about running from the Dark Mark at the Quidditch World Cup. He tells the DEs: "I do not forgive, I do not forget. Thirteen long years...I want thirteen years' repayment before I forgive you" (GoF p. 649). Grey Wolf again: > and yet Voldemort played with Harry. You could say it was > out of cruelty, but then why did he stop where he did? Harry was > still standing and the game was still fun. Now me: Every time Voldemort hits Harry with a successful curse/spell (Crucatius, the spine-bender), the text indicates that the DEs laugh. This is what Voldemort wants - this is all part of his redemption in front of his DEs, his proving of his power, his way of ensuring that the DEs will be loyal followers this time. Note that when Harry resists the Imperius curse, the DE's do *not* laugh. I truly do not believe Voldemort planned this or was expecting Harry to resist it. Granted, he doesn't show surprise, but to show surprise would be admitting defeat, and his aim is to impress the DEs with his power. Then Voldemort tries another Crucatius and Harry ducks it behind a gravestone. This also makes Voldemort look bad. Voldemort then concludes that, since this game is no longer going the way he wants it to go, he'll get right down to the business at hand and throw the AK. Grey Wolf: > so the first thing he does is anulate all his innate, unfocused > magic by putting a wand in his hand, thus making him think in > spells instead of having him use that magics that have saved him > several times so far. Me again: I went back and read the Comic Relief interview again, and as Porphyria points out, JKR mentions Harry specifically by referencing the Aunt Marge inflation incident as an example of unfocused, uncontrolled magic. So perhaps she was just thinking of Harry when she made the comment, since we know there are other instances of wandless magic performed by others. And the examples I can think of for when Harry does such wandless magic - the vanishing glass in the zoo, Aunt Marge's inflation and exploding glass - are when he is angry. He's not angry in the graveyard, he's scared for his life. Moreover, even Harry admits that, when Aunt Marge's glass explodes in PoA, he "hasn't lost control like that in awhile." IMO, out-of- control magic is not as powerful as controlled magic. Grey Wolf: > This is not the work of an evil overlord, it's the work of an > extremelly careful planner, one that has examined step by step his > movements that night and which has planned almost every possible > problem. Me again: Why do the two need to be mutually exclusive? I agree that Voldemort is an extremely careful planner. But I don't think that everything always goes according to his plans (such as when Harry resists the Imperius and dodges the Cruciatus). ~Phyllis From rusalka at ix.netcom.com Thu Aug 22 15:03:38 2002 From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants) Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 15:03:38 -0000 Subject: FILK: Granger Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43016 Granger To the tune of "Alma" by Tom Lehrer SCENE: In her office at the "Daily Prophet," Rita Skeeter dicates yet another slanderous article about Hermione to her quill. RITA: The most dangerous witch in the Isles Is Granger -- the sneakiest, too. All men in her sphere she beguiles, How she does this, I haven't a clue. Her conquests are truly amazing, That girl is a menace, I say! Blood pressures and eyebrows she's raising, As she bags a new boy every day. Granger, tell us, You're making the Hogwarts girls jealous, Did you bang on some magical drum To get Potter and Weasley and Krum? The first one she conquered was Potter, And to get him she played every card. He said, "I'm so happy I've got her! Just rename me The Boy Who Fell Hard." But he was so awkward and scrawny, With a messy-haired, clueless demeanor. She wanted somebody more brawny, So she went looking for pasture that's greener. Granger, tell us, You're making the Hogwarts girls jealous, How did you get them all to succumb, Bagging Potter and Weasley and Krum? Harry's fame was a major attraction, But it wasn't enough in the end. Granger said, "It is time for some action!" And went after Potter's best friend. And that's how she picked up Ron Weasley, Whose blood is distinguished and pure, But his family fortune is measley, Her comforts he couldn't ensure. Granger, tell us, You're making the Hogwarts girls jealous, Though your charms add up to a small sum, You got Potter and Weasley and Krum. So she threw Ronnie over for Viktor, Who has fame and fortune to spare, He did not have the strength to evict her, And now he is caught in her snare. So that is the story of Granger, Who surely must practice Dark Arts. I warn you, that girl is a danger! Boys, don't let her toy with your hearts! Granger, tell us, How can they help but be jealous, You've left them nothing but crumbs, While you got Potter and Weasley, By what spells dark and grisly Did you get Potter and Weasley and Krum? Marina rusalka at ix.netcom.com From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Thu Aug 22 17:21:50 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 17:21:50 -0000 Subject: Voldemort: Evil Overlord or Careful Planner? (WAS: Is Harry More Powerful..) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43017 > I said: > > > This is not the work of an evil overlord, it's the work of an > > extremelly careful planner, one that has examined step by step his > > movements that night and which has planned almost every possible > > problem. > > Phyllis answered: > > Why do the two need to be mutually exclusive? I agree that Voldemort > is an extremely careful planner. But I don't think that everything > always goes according to his plans (such as when Harry resists the > Imperius and dodges the Cruciatus). > > ~Phyllis You know, I've always been of the opinion that evil overlord and careful planner *are* mutually exclusive, although I have to grant you that it shouldn't necesarily be the case. This is because, once you've read the evil overlord list[1], one of the things you realise is that an evil overlord is such a supreme egomaniac that he doesn't ever really plan, or indeed can bring himself up to believe that one of his ideas can go wrong. It seems, as always seems to be my case, that we're woking on two different definitions here. I never intended to say that everything goes according to Voldemort's plan. It is a known fact of life that no plan survives contact with the enemy, and MAGIC DISHWASHER actually works on this fact. Both Dumbledore and Voldemort have great plans for their victory, but so far they have all failed at the most decisive moment (read post #39662 for Dumbledore's plan, and how it failed). The fact that a plan can go wrong and still have a back-up plan (generally called "plan B") ready for that situation is what diferences an evil overlord and a careful planer in my eyes. But I can accept that this doesn't have to be a general perception. And the fact is that, using that definition, Voldemort is not an evil overlord. He's evil, of course, but he doesn't let his cruelty get in the way of his plans. While he may enjoy causing pain to people around him, and is convinced that he is the greatest wizard ever, he's intelligent enough to know that plans can and will fail, and thus that he needs contingency plans as well as the main one. He uses deliberate cruelty as a weapon, to induce fear in his enemies and allies (Machiavelli said that you must be feared or loved to be a good leader. Voldemort knows this). This sort of deliberate cruelty is very hard to mantain, unless one has greater goals in mind. An egomaniac will not mantain control of himself long enough to create the Reign of Terror Voldemort has created, but will become bored or reckless and get himself killed very fast. Phyllis: > Voldemort had a need to prove, in front of his Death > Eaters, that he could kill Harry Potter fair and square, so there > would be no "lingering doubt" among his DEs as to "which of us is the > stronger" (GoF p. 658). I think this is a combination of Voldemort's > overinflated ego as well as a need to redeem himself in front of his > followers. Most of his followers, after all, claimed they'd been > Imperio'd after Voldemort's fall from power. As I've said, Voldemort had to be lying about the lingering doubts. If the DE doubted Voldemort powers, why are they still afraid of him? Why did they answer his call? Why are they still loyal to him after 13 years, especially after watching his master dwarfed by Harry in the graveyard once again? Truth is that Voldemort is still powerful enough to kill all of them, and there is no real reason to assume that there could be "lingering doubts" about Voldemort's power, or else they wouldn't risk going to him once more. If Voldemort is not powerful enough to beat Harry, why don't they *ally* with Harry? After, they're DEs, and for them morality is something that happens to (and weakens) other people. What do they gain by allying themselves with Voldemort, especially if they doubt his powers? They're powerful people in the WW: rich, close to the seat of power, and capable of buying whatever laws they want. DEs like Lucius must realize that when Voldemort gets to power, they won't have as many power as they have now, because Voldemort isn't the kind to accept ideas from people below him. No, I don't think there are any lingering doubts between the DEs: that's part of the misinformation that Voldemort wants to feed Dumbledore, because the only lingering doubts are in Voldemort himself: he isn't all that sure that he can kill Harry, and in case the boy escapes once again, at least he will put Dumbledore at a disadvantage by feeding him fase information about illusional weak spots in his DE origanization. The DEs don't doubt Voldemort's power because they are still DEs (i.e. they haven't chosen Dumbledore's side, so they must believe that Voldemort still has more than 50% chance of wining), and they are still very much afraid of Voldemort. IMO, not even Snape has doubts about Voldemort's power: I believe he changed sides because he has a debt to pay to Dumbledore (or to Harry, if you want to believe LOLLIPOPS), not because he thinks that Voldemort cannot win. And the tricky question here is that "who's more powerful" business. In a power scale, who would you put at the top: Voldemort or Dumbledore? Dumbledore has more raw power, but he doubts he could win Voldemort because there are certain spells he would not do. Voldemort, on the other hand, probably thinks that if he confronted Dumbledore directly, he could very well push him into using those pwowers, and would thus be killed. Where does Harry fit, then? He's no way more powerful than Voldemort, that's for sure. Everyone knows that: Dumbledore, Harry, Voldemort and the DEs. They know that he's no match whatsoever for Voldemort. The only reason why Harry is still alive is that a magical shield used to protect him, and now a freaky coincidence called priori incantatum saved him (yes, I know it's not really a coincidence, but still, he's geting more and more vulnerable). Harry has a defence that Voldemort, so far, hasn't been able to overcome, but that's not good enough for Harry: no war is won from a defensive position, and they all know it. Just bcause Voldemort cannot kill Harry doesn't make Harry more powerful than Voldemort, just equally protected: Harry cannot kill Voldemort, and Voldemort cannot kill Harry. Volemort can still take over the world, and there isn't really anything Harry can do about it. Which is why Dumbledore is collecting allies at the end of GoF. Harry is good enough as a defensive mechanism, but Dumbledore knows that it's going to take more than Harry to win the war (and he's got plans to help him along, according to MAIC DISHWASHER, even if we don't know what those plans are yet). > Phyllis again: > > I went back and read the Comic Relief interview again, and as > Porphyria points out, JKR mentions Harry specifically by referencing > the Aunt Marge inflation incident as an example of unfocused, > uncontrolled magic. So perhaps she was just thinking of Harry when > she made the comment, since we know there are other instances of > wandless magic performed by others. And the examples I can think of > for when Harry does such wandless magic - the vanishing glass in the > zoo, Aunt Marge's inflation and exploding glass - are when he is > angry. He's not angry in the graveyard, he's scared for his life. > Moreover, even Harry admits that, when Aunt Marge's glass explodes in > PoA, he "hasn't lost control like that in awhile." The unfocused magic does not only work when Harry is angry. It also works when he's scared of something (of Dudley's gang, when he apparates to the roof of the kitchen, or of being laughed at, when he regrows his hair). It actually makes more sense that the magic kicks in when scared, as a form of reflex mechanism of self-protection. And the wizards know this sort of magic: Neville's family kept putting him into danger to see if they could get Neville to show magic. If the Nevilles know, Voldemort probably does too, and if he knows, he doesn't want Harry tapping into the unfocused magic. And the graveyard was the perfect situation for it to happen since Harry, as you've said, was very scared. > IMO, out-of-control magic is not as powerful as controlled magic. I'm going to repeat it once more, just in case. I do *not* say that unfocused magic is more powerful than focused magic. I only say that in *Harry's* case it is and *only* because he's not fully trained. To take it to the extreme: imagine a 10 year old wizard. He certainly doesn't know how to cast spells, but he *has* got unfocused magic. In his case, which is more powerful? Unfocused, of corse. Well, Harry is still halfway through his training and, notwithtanding all the pratice he has gotten so far, his focused magic is still not very powerful, except in two or three specific spells (Expelliarmus, Patronus and maybe Accio), while his unfocused magic is still very powerful inded. If Voldemort hadn't given him a wand to have his mind concentrate on focused magic, he could have apparated away from there, inflated the lot of them, create a diversion, or JKR knows what other tricks the unfocused magic has up its sleave. Since he was scared, I'd say that apparating away would be a distinct possibility, since it has happened once already. Hope that helps, Grey Wolf [1] http://www.eviloverlord.com/lists/overlord.html From rusalka at ix.netcom.com Thu Aug 22 17:56:09 2002 From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants) Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 17:56:09 -0000 Subject: Voldemort: Evil Overlord or Careful Planner? (WAS: Is Harry More Powerful..) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43018 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "grey_wolf_c" wrote: > As I've said, Voldemort had to be lying about the lingering doubts. If > the DE doubted Voldemort powers, why are they still afraid of him? Why > did they answer his call? Because they're hedging their bets. They may have doubts about Voldemort's current strength, but they're not about to stake their lives on that doubt by not showing up when he summons them for the first time in 13 years. They want to *see* how much power he currently has before they decide which way they're going to swing. Voldemort knows this, which is why he decides the duel is necessary. That's why it's called a doubt rather than a conviction, after all. If the DEs were convinced that Voldemort is too weak to hurt them, they'd drop him in an instant. But they're not convinced, they're only doubting. >Why are they still loyal to him after 13 > years, especially after watching his master dwarfed by Harry in the > graveyard once again? > Truth is that Voldemort is still powerful enough > to kill all of them, and there is no real reason to assume that there > could be "lingering doubts" about Voldemort's power, or else they > wouldn't risk going to him once more. What risk? If they go to him only to discover that theyir doubts were right and Voldemort is weak, then all they've lost is one wasted trip to a graveyard. On the other hand, if they stay home and play pinnochle only to discover that their doubts were wrong and Voldemort is more powerful than ever, they're royally screwed. Voldemort was defeated by a toddler, then disappeared for over thirteen years. That's more than enough reason for his followers to at least consider the possibility that he's not as powerful as he used to be. The thing is, for all his posturing and evilness, Voldemort is in a really shaky position after his rebirth. He's been gone a long time, and during that time most of his followers (those who aren't rotting in Azkaban, anyway) have regained their good standing in society and moved on with their lives. Many are now secure and wealthy and hold positions of respect in the current order. They're older, more settled, many have spouses and children now. They're not necessarily going to want to run out and start waging a terrorist war again unless they're *really* convinced that a) they're on the winning side; and b) they'll be in deep trouble if they refuse. If Voldemort had beaten Harry in a fair duel, it would've gone a long way toward establishing both these things. (Or that's how Voldemort sees it, anyhow. I still think he would've been better off slitting Harry's throat while Harry was still tied to the gravestone.) Marina rusalka at ix.netcom.com From skelkins at attbi.com Thu Aug 22 18:13:04 2002 From: skelkins at attbi.com (ssk7882) Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 18:13:04 -0000 Subject: Wandless magic -- is is Dark in here or is it me? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43019 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "marinafrants" wrote: > And remember that the Darkest spell we've seen in the books so > far -- the one that resurrected Voldemort in the graveyard -- > involves a potion. But it also involves a certain amount of wand- > waving and an incantation. It seems like some sort of combination > of Potions and traditional spell-casting. Which does seem to > suggest that Potions and Dark Arts are closely related somehow. In fact, most of the Dark Arts that we've actually seen in the books don't seem to require a wand, do they? We don't know precisely what all of that "Dark Arts stuff" that Lucius Malfoy has hidden under that trapdoor of his is, but the items that have either been mentioned or that we know came from his stash include poisons (wandless) and Riddle's Diary (an enchanted object). Creating the diary may have involved a wand; we just don't know. Activating it obviously does not. Although we know that there do exist "dark" books -- or at least, I infer as much from the existence of a restricted section in Hogwarts' library -- the items that the text mentions as on display in B&Bs all seem to be magical artifacts and enchanted items: the hand of glory, the enchanted necklace. No books are mentioned. The Weasley admonition against seemingly self-aware magical items strikes me as highly significant here. The Marauder's Map seems to have a mind of its own; so does the Sorting Hat. Are these items "Dark?" Well...maybe not. But they certainly are *suspicious,* aren't they? Was there anyone here who upon reading PoA for the first time, did *not* get a thrill of dire apprehension when Snape asked Lupin whether Harry might not have received the Map "direct from the manufacturers themselves?" Voldemort activates his followers' Dark Marks by touching Wormtail's mark with his finger, not with his wand. He managed to possess Quirrell without his wand. Was Quirrell's wand required? Somehow I really doubt it. Similarly, we don't know precisely what was required for him to become embodied in the ugly baby form. Potion ingredients are specified; wands and incantations are not. Again, I somehow feel doubtful that a wand was involved at all. Divination also appears to be a completely wandless art. Neither the less efficacious skills that Trelawney teaches to her students nor the one act of True Seership we have seen her exhibit involve wand or incantation. I've hypothesized elsewhere (message #35373) that Divination itself may be itself a suspect art. My gut feeling here (admittedly on the basis of very little in the way of canonical proof) is that the sort of magic that does not require a wand is primarily *old* magic, magic that predates the ritualized formulae developed by the Wizarding World. There is a mythopoetic quality to many of the wandless magics that exist in the WW, yet which are not outlawed classified as inherently "Dark." People transforming into animal forms which reflect a part of their inherent essence, people foreseeing the future, potions brewed up in cauldrons, magical artifacts which continue to reflect their creators' personalities long after their creators have moved on...these are the magics of myth and of fairy tale. They are *old* magics, older than the spell-casting of the ceremonial magician, with his Latinate incantations and his carefully formulated gestures. Old magics may well be suspect within the WW simply by virtue of being less controllable, less predictable -- and far less well-understood. Into the category of "old" magic, though, I would also have to group the "ancient" magics which Dumbledore cites in tones of reverence. The bond of the life-debt. The protective power of sacrificial maternal love. Both of which are evidently wandless. Neither of which is Dark. -- Elkins From rusalka at ix.netcom.com Thu Aug 22 18:28:36 2002 From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants) Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 18:28:36 -0000 Subject: Wandless magic -- is is Dark in here or is it me? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43020 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "ssk7882" wrote: > Voldemort activates his followers' Dark Marks by touching Wormtail's > mark with his finger, not with his wand. He managed to possess > Quirrell without his wand. Was Quirrell's wand required? Somehow > I really doubt it. Similarly, we don't know precisely what was > required for him to become embodied in the ugly baby form. Potion > ingredients are specified; wands and incantations are not. Again, > I somehow feel doubtful that a wand was involved at all. Well, Wormtail did use his wand to make Riddle, Sr.'s powdered bones come out of the grave and into the cauldron. But I suppose that was just for convenience -- if he had to, he could've dug down with a shovel to get the bones. But I would say there was definitely an incantation involved -- that whole "bone of the father, flesh of the servant, blood of the enemy" chanting was not just for atmosphere, it was part of the spell. Which is intriguing, because it's the only spell I can think of in these books where the incantation was in English. Marina rusalka at ix.netcom.com From nova_glitterfreak at yahoo.com Thu Aug 22 18:04:28 2002 From: nova_glitterfreak at yahoo.com (nova_glitterfreak) Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 18:04:28 -0000 Subject: Wandless magic -- is is Dark in here or is it me? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43021 whilst reflecting on wandless magic and its possible relation to the dark arts, Porphyria wrote: > 2. Miscellaneous little spells. and Porphyria includes: > a) At the end of PS/SS, Quirrell snaps his fingers and ropes spring out; shortly after he released Harry from his bonds with a clap. > b) Also in PS/SS, Dumbledore claps his hands to change the banner colors. > c) At the beginning of PoA, Tim, the ancient innkeeper of the Leaky Cauldron, starts a fire with a snap. > > d) In the Shrieking Shack scene in PoA, Snape clicks his fingers to summon Lupin's ropes to his hand. > > Can anyone think of anything else? To my mind Dumbledore does usually use a wand when he's doing magic, but if I've left something out let me know. One other example that I immediately thought of was the Put-Outer, which appears just once at the beginning of PS/SS. In fact, it is one of the very first instances of magic we actually see in the book. I've always found this magical object to be extremely interesting, and apparently Cindysphynx did as well, because she wrote a whole essay on it that appears in the lexicon. Here is the link: http://www.i2k.com/~svderark/lexicon/put-outer.html I'm not certain how her conclusion (or at least one of them) on this--that it gave the MOM a sort of surveillance system on Privet drive--jibes with your theory, but I just thought I would put it out there, since you did ask... -Nova who now goes back to lurking... From mikezitz at charter.net Thu Aug 22 18:12:08 2002 From: mikezitz at charter.net (interstate999) Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 18:12:08 -0000 Subject: Voldemort: Evil Overlord or Careful Planner? (WAS: Is Harry More Powerful..) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43022 grey_wolf_c" wrote: >> Massive Edit > And the tricky question here is that "who's more powerful" business. In > a power scale, who would you put at the top: Voldemort or Dumbledore? > Dumbledore has more raw power, but he doubts he could win Voldemort > because there are certain spells he would not do. Voldemort, on the > other hand, probably thinks that if he confronted Dumbledore directly, > he could very well push him into using those pwowers, and would thus be > killed. Where does Harry fit, then? He's no way more powerful than > Voldemort, that's for sure. Everyone knows that: Dumbledore, Harry, > Voldemort and the DEs. They know that he's no match whatsoever for > Voldemort. The only reason why Harry is still alive is that a magical > shield used to protect him, and now a freaky coincidence called priori > incantatum saved him (yes, I know it's not really a coincidence, but > still, he's geting more and more vulnerable). Harry has a defence that > Voldemort, so far, hasn't been able to overcome, but that's not good > enough for Harry: no war is won from a defensive position, and they all > know it. Just bcause Voldemort cannot kill Harry doesn't make Harry > more powerful than Voldemort, just equally protected: Harry cannot kill > Voldemort, and Voldemort cannot kill Harry. Volemort can still take > over the world, and there isn't really anything Harry can do about it. > Which is why Dumbledore is collecting allies at the end of GoF. Harry > is good enough as a defensive mechanism, but Dumbledore knows that it's > going to take more than Harry to win the war (and he's got plans to > help him along, according to MAIC DISHWASHER, even if we don't know >> Massive Edit Ok, now me. Power, who is the most powerful? Hummm, who has the power to kill to kill another? Who has the power to topple the dark lord? To me this is not a question of who is the most powerful, but who knows how to use it. Just because a football player weights is at 245 and can bench press a small car, doesn't mean they are the strongest player on the team. Just because a train packs more power than a motorcycle, doesn't means it will get to the finish line first. There is more to a wizard than just power. There are more tools that a wizards posses than just magic. There is more to a warrior then bravery. Young Harry Potter shows qualities that are truly valuable? Bravery, power, and best of all quick thinking common sense. Countless times Harry finds himself in a heap of trouble, or the trouble finds him. Every time when he needs it most, magic doesn't play the part, simple quick thinking common sense does. This is harry's secret weapon against the evil lord. True, a knife thrust into the chest may not kill the dark lord in a way we think a wizarding duel may take place, but one way or another, the dark lord is just as dead. Hint SS9, page 153, what does Malfoy say to Harry? More importantly is what Ron tells him what to do on the next page if nothing comes out of his wand. Mike From bdmorrp at budget.state.ny.us Thu Aug 22 19:46:58 2002 From: bdmorrp at budget.state.ny.us (erisedstraeh2002) Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 19:46:58 -0000 Subject: Voldemort: Evil Overlord or Careful Planner? (WAS: Is Harry More Powerful..) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43023 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "grey_wolf_c" wrote: > You know, I've always been of the opinion that evil overlord and > careful planner *are* mutually exclusive, although I have to grant > you that it shouldn't necessarily be the case. This is because, > once you've read the evil overlord list, one of the things you > realise is that an evil overlord is such a supreme egomaniac that > he doesn't ever really plan, or indeed can bring himself up to > believe that one of his ideas can go wrong. Now me: I don't think it's possible to put Voldemort in either an "evil overlord" or a "careful planner" box. He clearly embodies elements of both. And I think this is intentional on JKR's part - from the same 2000 BBC interview that I provided the link for in a previous post today, JKR says (with regard to Voldemort): "I wanted to create a villain where you could understand the workings of his mind, not just have a 2-D baddie, dressed up in black, and I wanted to explore that and see where that came from." It's obvious that he's a careful planner (e.g., putting Fake!Moody at Hogwarts to guide Harry through the tournament, having the Triwizard Cup portkey Harry to the graveyard), but I also think he has a big ego. Not a *supreme* ego at the expense of all else, just a *big* ego. And a ruthless desire for power. And he does bring himself to believe that his ideas can go wrong and that he's fallible: "His mother left upon him the traces of her sacrifice...This is old magic, I should have remembered it, I was foolish to overlook it..." (GoF, pgs. 652 and 653). Grey Wolf again: >(Machiavelli said that you must be feared or loved to be a good >leader. Voldemort knows this.) Me again: I agree that Voldemort understands that he must be feared to be a good leader. I think he's concerned that his downfall at the hands of Harry Potter has diminished the fear he worked so hard to establish during his first rein of terror, since his followers were so quick to denounce him after his downfall. And so, in the graveyard, he wants to demonstrate to the DEs that he can kill Harry on a level playing field, thus vanquishing the only person who ever presented a real threat to him and firmly re-establishing that fear. Grey Wolf: >Where does Harry fit, then? Now me: Dumbledore is grooming Harry for something, most likely a show-down with Voldemort in Book 7. If he wasn't, he would have told Harry that he had put a spell on the philosopher's stone that precluded Voldemort from getting it; he wouldn't have let Harry go into the Forbidden Forest for detention when something evil was killing unicorns; he wouldn't have given Harry the invisibility cloak (twice!) with notes saying "use it well" and "just in case" in SS/PS; he would have told Harry that Voldemort was once called Tom Riddle so that Harry would know to ditch the diary; he would have time-turned himself to save Buckbeak and Sirius in PoA rather than asking Harry and Hermione to do it and he wouldn't have let the Triwizard Tournament happen when he suspected Voldemort was trying to regain power. Why Harry has to be the one to vanquish Voldemort is a question I'd like to hear theories from the group on (or references to previous posts) - I think it has something to do with why Voldemort wanted to kill him in the first place, which I think has to do with his being the Heir of Gryffindor. Grey Wolf: > The unfocused magic does not only work when Harry is angry. It also > works when he's scared of something (of Dudley's gang, when he > apparates to the roof of the kitchen, or of being laughed at, when > he regrows his hair). Me again: I agree, I just ran out of time to make my argument because I had to run to a meeting! I just think the wandless magic Harry performs while angry is more powerful (blowing up Marge) than the wandless magic he performs while scared (regrowing hair). But not more powerful than controlled magic with a wand! ~Phyllis think outside the box! From skelkins at attbi.com Thu Aug 22 21:13:52 2002 From: skelkins at attbi.com (ssk7882) Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 21:13:52 -0000 Subject: Fred and George: The Bullies You Do Know In-Reply-To: <025301c24404$08eb6e00$badef718@kzo.chartermi.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43024 Jenny from Ravenclaw wrote: > Fred and George are quite the loveable scoundrels, are they not? No, they most certainly are *not!* Heh. Oh, boy. Was Jenny actually trying to *bait* me here? I find myself wondering. Was it possible that she just didn't *know* how I feel about the twins? Was she *hoping* to send me off on another series of snarling, spitting, foaming *rants,* just like the ones that I hacked venemously up onto the list the last time I expressed my opinions on the twins, way back in February? Does she just *like* the smell of bile in the morning? Hey, maybe she does. Maybe she does at that. Well, okay, then. Happy to oblige. ;-) Now, I know that everyone else in the entire universe just adores the twins. I know that they're popular characters. And indeed, they have been very nice to Harry -- and I do appreciate it when the characters are nice to Harry. But I just have to say it. I do not like the twins. At all. I think that they are a pair of mean insensitive bullies, and I tend to feel that the only reason that readers don't generally perceive them as such is because we see the story through Harry's eyes -- and Harry happens to be inside of the magic circle of people the twins perceive as their in-group, and who are therefore protected from their harrassment. The twins are indeed decent to Harry. They're the Bullies We Do Know, and that makes it a lot easier for us to overlook their bullying traits. But if I may riff a bit off of Sirius here for a minute, if you want to know what a man is like, take a good look at how he treats *outsiders,* not the members of his own in-group. And how do the Twins treat those who do not fall within the magic circle of those they consider to be under their protection? Well, what interactions have we actually seen between the twins and students from outside of House Gryffindor? Hmmm. Well, there's Draco Malfoy and his cronies, of course. In PoA, they sneer at Draco for running into their cabin while fleeing the dementor on the Hogwarts Express. In GoF, they hex him and his (unarmed!) buddies in the back, leave them lying unconscious on the floor of a train in the middle of London, and then *step* on them while they're out cold. This, I would add, at a point in the tale when they have become legal adults. Not a whole lot of noblesse oblige going on there. Not much in the way of chivalry. Not the sort of behavior that represents an assumption of the mantle of adulthood. And...let's see. Who else? Well, there's Dudley. Ton-tongue toffee, anyone? The kid is three years younger than they are, and he's a muggle besides; it is plain to see that he is absolutely *petrified* of magic, and the twins are passing him cursed sweets. Very nice. Oh, and then there's little Malcolm Baddock. Eleven years old, it's his very first day at school, the poor kid's probably scared out of his gourd to begin with, he's just been sorted into Slytherin, and on his way to the table, big strong sixteen-year-old Fred and George actually *hiss* him. You know, we've never heard of even the Slytherins doing anything like that? Never once has there been a mention of *anyone* jeering, hissing, or booing at the Sorting Ceremony. Except for Fred and George, that is, because Fred and George are a couple of thuggish *cads.* They can't even manage to be nice to the Ever So Decent Cedric at the beginning of GoF. He's trying to be friendly, and they're scowling menacingly at him, just because he had the unmitigated gall to whip them once at Quidditch. What would they have been doing if their parents hadn't been around, one wonders. Beating him *up?* Well, maybe not. Because, after all, he's just as big as they are. Although they *do* outnumber him. It certainly is interesting, isn't it, that we so rarely see Fred and George insulting or abusing students who are actually their own age? Or their own size? I mean, they're a couple of really *big* kids, aren't they? Built like a couple of bludgers, and by the end of GoF, they're actually technically adults. And yet who (outside of their own family) do we see them going up against? Who do we see them hexing or hissing? Who are the targets of their practical jokes? Yes, that's right. It's always younger kids, isn't it. Children two, three, even five years younger than they are. Even when the twins target adults, it's always *vulnerable* adults. They don't hurl snowballs at Professor McGonagall, do they? No, of course not. They throw them at Professor Quirrell, whom they have every reason to believe is indeed precisely what he appears to be: a stammering, shell-shocked wreck of a wizard who is tottering right on the edge of a nervous collapse. You know, where I come from, we had a word for big strong self-confident teenagers who spent their time picking on younger kids and emotionally crippled adults. We called them *bullies.* Jenny asked: > Has anyone ever thought of their pranks as a bit mean-spirited? Yes. Take Ton-Tongue Toffee, for example... Oh! Oh, you already have. Well, all right then. > When I first read GoF, I delighted in the Ton-Tongue Toffee scene. > Boy, did I love picturing Dudley on his hands and knees in the > living room, scooping up as many of the "brightly colored" toffees > as his greedy hands could find. Really? I just plain *hated* that scene. I thought it cruel. Dudley had been on a diet all summer long, for heaven's sake! The poor kid had been being given lettuce leaves and grapefruit halves to eat. If I'd been eating like that for two months and then someone dropped a pocketful of toffees at my feet, I'm sure that I'd be down there grovelling around on the carpet for them too. Never mind the fact that from the instant the Weasleys arrive in the Dursley's home, Dudley is cringing away from them, and he's got his hands clamped across his buttocks, and he's backed all the way up against the *wall,* he's so terrified of what they might do to him, and... Oh, well. Ugh. Just made me sick, that scene did. > My mother, however, didn't think it was so funny. She thought Fred > and George were mean. Well, whether one found it funny or not, I'd say that it certainly was *mean.* It was hardly a good-natured joke. It was malicious. And quite properly, their father chastised them for it, although he did misascribe their motive. I did not find their excuse in the least bit impressive. "Oh, but Dad, he's a big mean bully!" Yeah. And the twins are even bigger and meaner and more powerful bullies. So? And? Their point was? Jenny: > How popular should they be? I wouldn't call them bullies like > Draco and his cronies... Oh, I would. And I suspect that quite a number of the younger members of House Slytherin would probably agree with me. I think that Fred and George are every bit as big a pair of bullies as Crabbe and Goyle are. We just don't see quite as much of it, because the story isn't told from the point of view of the kids they choose as their victims. But we see enough of it. We see enough of it to get the picture. I think that they're quite clearly bullies. > ...but how must Neville feel about them? Oh, living with them is probably giving Neville ulcers. But still, you know, it could be a whole lot worse. Neville's in their magic circle, which means that he's only likely to fall victim to their callous thoughtlessness, rather than to their outright bullying. And I'm sure that they'd protect him, if they were around when someone outside of their group were hassling him. One man's bully is another man's bodyguard. Jenny asked if people like the twins. HF queried in response: > When you say 'people', are you talking about the reading audience > or the wizarding world? The WW seems to approve of them on the > whole, with the exception of Mrs. Weasley. Yes. The twins are charismatic, and they are well-liked. This probably contributes to my sense of anger about them. They remind me far too much of so many bullies I have known: the charismatic bullies, the popular ones, the ones who are always favored by those in authority, the ones who are widely believed to be all-round "nice guys" -- by everyone, that is, except for their victims. But hey. Their victims deserve whatever they get. Right? HF wrote: > To sort of divide this up a bit, the twins seem to ply their trade > on two levels: retributive, and for the hell of it. Read: "bullying" and "callous thoughtlessness." Most of what falls into the category of "retributive," I read as plain and simple bullying. HF: > Percy's stuffed-shirtedness and Malfoy's arrogance are natural > targets (such traits are, after all, the target of pranksters and > satirists the world over); they're practically *begging* to be > taken down a peg or two by having Head Boy badges enchanted to read > 'Bighead Boy' or be hexed into oblivion. Yup. Percy and Malfoy were begging for it, all right. Much in the same way that Snape was just *pleading* to be fed to a werewolf, by virtue of being so nasty and sneaky, and of having oily hair. See, this particular logic really hits all of my hot buttons, because in my experience, it's the logic that bullies *always* use to justify their actions. "If he weren't so snotty, we wouldn't have been forced to shove him in the locker." "She was really asking for it, the way she always dressed so badly and never stood up for herself." It reminds me most uncomfortably, in fact, of those gruesome excuses that people sometimes offer for committing sexual assault. "She was asking for it, wearing a short skirt like that!" "She just thought that she was *IT,* so she needed to be taken down a peg." I don't find it compelling. To say the least. In what way is being somewhat stuffy and pompous a request for constant harrassment? In what way is arrogance a petition for physical assault? HF called this "retributive," but it just doesn't read that way to me. To me, it reads like bullying. A case can be made for the twins' assault on the Slyths on the train at the end of GoF as "retributive" to be sure, but what about Malcolm Baddock? What about Professor Quirrell? And what about Percy? The twins aren't picking on Percy because he has injured them terribly through any particular action he has taken against them. They're picking on him because he is *vulnerable,* and because they have identified some trait that makes him, to their mind, "fair game," thus enabling them to rationalize their behavior. In Percy's case, that trait happens to be pomposity. But what if it had instead been ugliness? Or intellect? Or talent? Or timidity? After all, Harry's way too talented, don't you think? He desperately needs to be taken down a peg or two. It's for his own good, really. And the same goes for Hermione. She's just *asking* for trouble, with all of that reading and studying, and sucking up to her professors, and being such a swotty little know-it-all. And Neville? Well, my goodness! Neville was actually down on his *knees* to Malfoy in that corridor, don't you know. Yeah, he was just *grovelling* for a good old fashioned leg-locker curse. He *needed* it, you see, because he's so ridiculously timid and non-confrontational. Malfoy was doing him a favor, really. And so is Snape, every week in Potions class. No, I'm sorry. When bullies are called to account for their actions, I'm sturdily unimpressed by the claim that their victims were "asking for it." That's the excuse that bullies always use. It doesn't get either Draco or Snape off the hook with me, and it doesn't get the twins off the hook with me either. I don't like bullying. Then, I readily admit there are times when the twins mean no harm. There are times when they mean well. They're just so appallingly insensitive that they end up *causing* harm in spite of themselves. Here we have HF's "for the hell of it," which I suppose we might also classify as "lads will be lads." HF: > On the other hand, you have things like wanton Puffskein > destruction, turning poor Ron's teddy bear into a spider, and > salamander torture -- although, with regards to the last point, > salamanders are immune to fire (yet I'm sure the salamander didn't > appreciate flying around the room while fireworks were going > off inside it.) Hmmm. You know, much as I dislike the twins, I think that I may have to agree with Olivia when it comes to the spider incident. Fred couldn't possibly have been old enough to be held accountable for that one. He had to have been very young at the time, so it was probably just a case of that spontaneous magic that wizarding children do. So I guess that I'll give him a (reluctant!) pass for that. But the Puffskein incident really horrified me, and I didn't much care for the twins' treatment of the salamander either. Nor did I think much of their cavalier attitude towards Scabbers' "death" in PoA. Even taking into account the whole "boys will be boys" thing, the twins still strike me as exceptionally callous when it comes to animals, and that's really not a trait that I find at all endearing. Nor is it only animals. Into the "callous thoughtlessness" category, I would also place the twins' remorseless teasing of Ginny in CoS. Now, I understand that the twins actually didn't *mean* to be upsetting her that badly. They were genuinely trying to cheer her up. They really did mean well. I appreciate that. But they were so ridiculously *insensitive* that they didn't even notice that she was heading straight for a nervous breakdown until Percy pointed it out to them, at which point (to their credit) they did indeed cease and desist. I'm not much impressed with that degree of insensitivity either. The twins really do strike me as a pair of thuggish brutes. Back to Jenny again: > Many people dislike Snape, Draco, Rita Skeeter and some aren't even > crazy about Ron - all because of their attitudes. Fred and George > are funny and fun, and obviously talented wizards, but are they > nice? No. They're not. And personally, I don't find them particularly funny, either. > Should we applaud them for their prank inventions and encourage > them to do more? I for one would love to see them open a new jokes > shop, but maybe they should be steered away from their current > passions for practical jokes. Nah. As much as I dislike the twins, I think that they should definitely open their joke shop. It's what they really want to do, it's what will make them happy, they certainly have both the drive and the hustle to succeed in business, and their joke items are obviously very well-crafted. Indeed, the twins so strike me as exceptionally talented. And besides, selling their gag products would be a *productive* outlet for their sadistic brand of humor. Harry's right: the WW is going to need its yuks, and apparently a lot of people in the WW actually find the twins' sense of humor funny. (Go figure.) So yeah, they're serving a useful purpose. Besides, maybe if they got that shop opened, they'd be far too busy running it and making their items to have the *time* to make other people's lives stressful and unpleasant. And *then* maybe poor Percy would finally be able to relax a little bit, rather than being driven into such a state of exhausted insecurity from their constant harrassment that he finds himself unwittingly aiding the forces of evil yet *again!* ;-) > I mean, should we like them as much as we do? Why do we like them > so much more than we like Snape or Draco? What "we," Jenny? -- Elkins, who really will feel very bad for the surviving twin if one of them is to die. Honestly. She will. And that won't be a smirk you'll be seeing on her face either. It will just *look* like a smirk, but it will actually be an...um, er, an attempt to, uh, to choke back her sobs. Really. From alina at distantplace.net Thu Aug 22 22:04:10 2002 From: alina at distantplace.net (Alina) Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 18:04:10 -0400 Subject: Parents' attitude towards HP (was Re: Fred and George: The Bullies You Do Know) References: Message-ID: <006b01c24a27$d85c41e0$4a112b18@shprd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com> No: HPFGUIDX 43025 Jenny asked: > When I first read GoF, I delighted in the Ton-Tongue Toffee scene. > Boy, did I love picturing Dudley on his hands and knees in the > living room, scooping up as many of the "brightly colored" toffees > as his greedy hands could find. > My mother, however, didn't think it was so funny. She thought Fred > and George were mean. That reminds me of something my mom said. She hasn't read the books, but watched the movie with the rest of the family when I got my DVD and here was her reaction to it: "It might be very exciting for kids, but a parent can't watch this calmly." Though the younger readers/movie watchers feel very sorry for Harry and his life with his relatives and later happy for him when he moves into Hogwarts, parents feel about it even stronger. My mother said she couldn't stand seeing a child abused like that, being a mother herself, even if it was just a movie. Of course, the book was intended for children not adults, but Rowling herself is a mother, I wonder what she was feeling when she herself wrote about Harry's life with the Dursleys. Alina of Distant Place http://www.distantplace.net/ --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.381 / Virus Database: 214 - Release Date: 02/08/2002 From lmccabe at sonic.net Thu Aug 22 22:01:25 2002 From: lmccabe at sonic.net (Linda C. McCabe) Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 15:01:25 -0700 Subject: Trelawney deserves credit, But so does Ron! Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43026 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Ambir Adams" wrote: > I actually think Ron is a bit more accurate with his predictions, > although he doesn't realize it yet. Most of everything he said to > Harry has happened, or did happen. If you want me to find specifics > like quotes and page numbers I will. I think Ron really has the gift > of sight, not Trelawney. Sure she might have had two correct > preditictions but honestly, only two? Grey Wolf then responded with: Ah, another convert for HAGRID WANTS BRASS DRAGONS AS PETS, ANSWERS, WANDS CRISS-CROSS or WANTON MORASS OF TOSH. Pity *I* don't buy the idea. Proof? Ron gets predictions right because he scouts almost all the possibilities, after all, and even then, it needs even more clever arguing about how he correctly predicted than to explain how Parvati expected a letter about the death of her rabbit. Any of the defenders of the above-named theories would like to come out and expose -in a nut-shell- their arguments? Okay so Grey Wolf has sent out four, count them four acronyms for my own pet theory and asked me to step forward to defend it. I've been happily writing and have once again gotten woefully behind in my reading of this list. So, please excuse the lateness in my reply. The Goddess takes up the challenge. To back up, just a little, I am with many others that are expecting/wishing/anticipating that Ron is a Seventh Son. Why? Why not! I love the idea of taking old legends such as Seventh Sons being gifted with the Sight and applying them to the Potterverse. All it takes is another son born before Ron to make it happen. Many people have commented on the large gap between Charlie and Percy as being a place ripe for another child. And then there was Arthur Weasley's statement about the Dark Mark being everyone's greatest fear. Along with Molly's somewhat overblown reaction when her family returned after the QWC. I think that's because they experienced a death of a child during Voldemort's reign number 1. And my pet theory, which has the above named four acronyms (I guess that's what you get when you send out the call for someone else to name a theory!) - is that there is a veiled pattern in the Weasley family names. It is alphabetic, but with a little obscuring. This is how it goes for the newbies who haven't heard this before: Arthur Bill - which I think is short for Bilius - the uncle who died after seeing a Grim, mentioned in PoA (OT - if I had a name like Bilius, I'd certainly use a nickname, similarly if it were Sanguine or Phlegmatic, or Choleric - the four body types used in physiognomy a 'science' that dates back at least to Aristotle) Charlie --David - hypothetical dead son Edward Percival -- slight obscuring of true first name - done all the time by people who get called their middle names versus their true first names. Fred George ----death of David and probable change of naming scheme due to superstitious thoughts by Molly and Arthur Ron Ginny Many think that I'm grasping at straws with this. If you don't want to believe my pet theory, that's fine. Personally, I want anyone to step forward and tell me if they linked on the first time they read PoA that the line about Scabbers missing a toe on a front paw with the later line about the biggest bit they found from Pettigrew being a finger. Did *anyone* catch that? I sure didn't. But I think the alphabetic naming scheme is obscured enough to be just her style. As for predictions by Ron, in Talons and Tealeaves he saw the acorn in Harry's teacup as being "a windfall, unexpected gold." - the prize for the Triwizard tournament. Then when they were to predict things for their own future in "The Unforgivable Curses" Ron predicted: he'd develop a cough - undetermined validity - he then suggested Harry would be stabbed in the back by someone he thought was a friend - preview of Harry and Ron's monthlong non-speaking to each other Ron will come off worse in a fight - Yes, when he and Harry made up, it was Ron who looked the fool. Ron predicted he'd drown - 2nd task anyone? Ron predicted he'd get trampled by a rampaging hippogriff - not yet at least. Another reason that I favor having Ron being a Seventh Son goes back to the mirror of Erised. He wanted to be able to step out from the shadows of his older brothers. The only way that he could envision that would be to become Head Boy - (like Bill and Percy had been) *as well* as being Quidditch Captain of the champion team. I submit that if he became a Prophet - that he would indeed distinguish himself from all of his older brothers. Of course, Grey Wolf just wants Ron to sacrifice himself in order to save Harry from the predicted Death by Decapitation. He thinks the Knight scene from PS/SS is foreshadowing of future sacrificial death by Ron. Could be. Possibly Ron will have that as well as incredible divination powers. I don't see why they have to be mutually exclusive. I hope that satifies the wolf's request for supplemental evidence and theory. Athena For explanations of acronyms check out Inish Alley: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/database?method=reportRows&tbl=1 3&sortBy=1&sortDir=down&start_at=0&query= BTW, I had checked out on a calendar to find out that Ron was born on a Saturday. According to legend from Yorkshire, England anyone born on a Saturday had nothing to fear from vampires. They could never become one, nor could they become a victim. (this was a paper I wrote over 20 years ago in high school about those blood suckers!) So, I suppose for those who think Snape is actually a vampire - that Ron has nothing to worry from him, you know except for failing his class, of course. From lily_solstar at hotmail.com Thu Aug 22 23:28:58 2002 From: lily_solstar at hotmail.com (lily_solstar) Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 23:28:58 -0000 Subject: Parents' attitude towards HP In-Reply-To: <006b01c24a27$d85c41e0$4a112b18@shprd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43027 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Alina" wrote: > Jenny asked: > > > When I first read GoF, I delighted in the Ton-Tongue Toffee scene. > > > > My mother, however, didn't think it was so funny. She thought Fred > > and George were mean. > > That reminds me of something my mom said. She hasn't read the books, but > watched the movie and here was > her reaction to it: "It might be very exciting for kids, but a parent can't > watch this calmly." My mother said > she couldn't stand seeing a child abused like that, being a mother herself, > even if it was just a movie. > > > Alina of Distant Place > http://www.distantplace.net/ That's very interesting. It reminds me of my experience with my mother. She didn't like the movies About A Boy or Big Daddy because she felt too sorry for the respective little boys. I laughed it off, but my reaction to their predicaments was much different. I didn't even think about their situations. Of course I felt sorry for them, but not enough to not enjoy the movies. Besides, almost all movies have happy endings, right? Being 16, half-way between child and adult, I have a perspective on both sides, and I have a theory. I think adults look at children as innocent, carefree, and deserving everything life has to offer. While actual children, on the other hand, know themselves. They don't think in terms of "oh, what an innocent little boy/girl I am" unless they want to get something. They hate some of their classmates, and establish friendships with others, and so come to see each other as *people*, not as *children*. This may give them a certain hardness towards other children. Not that they want to be mean on purpose, mind you, but just that they don't think that just because someone is a *child*, he should be automatically happy. I think JKR said sometime that she didn't have that glazed-over view of childhood as the perfect time. Or something along those lines. Also, I think she came up with the Dursleys before she was a parent. I wonder if her views on them changed after becomeing a mother. Hope a bit of that made sense, Lily Solstar From mikezitz at charter.net Thu Aug 22 19:29:11 2002 From: mikezitz at charter.net (interstate999) Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 19:29:11 -0000 Subject: Wandless magic In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43028 Many have posted on this subject so I'll start with a clean sheet from the beginning about wandless magic, focused and unfocused magic. To me I believe we are reaching a little to deep into focused and unfocused magic instead of taking at more of a simpler point of view. To me, there is one only one kind of magic, no focused or unfocused, no wand or wandless just magic. In my opinion, any wizard with enough skill can unlock a door without a wand; a wand just makes simple spells more powerful, or easier to cast, and makes difficult ones possible. The wand just amplifies the magic, nothing more or less. Magic from its very beginning almost always comes from the same place, from within you. When JK said focused magic is more powerful than unfocused magic, I think see meant... When one uses a wand, the wand helps to compress the magic to a small area like a bullet and when released from a wand with a flick of the wrist this will amplify the magic like a whip sending it to a specific target that the wand was aiming at the release point. When magic is casted without the use of a wand, there is no ability to target this magic, no ability or method to concentrate all of your power to, thus it is unfocused and doesn't pack the same punch one would have with a wand. That doesn't mean it can't be done, this just makes it more difficult. As far as when one is in trouble or angry, this is one's self- defense or instinct taking over. Does this mean it is weak, yes and no. Yes it is weaker than what you would cast with a wand, but it is much more powerful than then every day wandless abilities. The same as we muggles find ourselves with extra super human strength to lift a car off a fellow friend. Last thing on magic. Magic to me in the WW point of view. Magic comes from deep down inside you, from your hearts emotions. The words, the wands, the pointy little hats are nothing more than tools to help you focus that power and control it. This reminds me of when I was little and played baseball. Every time a swung that bat, I said "WAM" as loud as I could. This didn't really help me hit the ball any harder, but it reassured me that I knew I was gonna put that ball in outer space. I could have said, "tweak" instead, but it wouldn't have changed a thing, my thoughts were still in the same place. Funny, I'm 31 now and still yell "WAM" every time that ball comes by. Mike Zitzmann Hammond, La. From sydpad at yahoo.com Thu Aug 22 21:34:02 2002 From: sydpad at yahoo.com (sydpad) Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 21:34:02 -0000 Subject: Wandless magic -- is is Dark in here or is it me? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43029 Hi all-- I swore I was going to stick to lurking on this board, Porphyria's post gave me a bit of a brainwave, plus I'm procrastinating, so: I've rummaged around the Message attic looking for this subject (I kept getting sidelined by going through the large boxes labeled "Snape") but I couldn't find it-- please forgive me if this is a "Oh not THAT again" topic! So here's my brand-new, probably sadly unoriginal Grand Unified Theory of the Dark Arts. I'm writing this on the fly, so it'll probably be a bit incoherent... Just what makes the the Dark Arts dark? To cut straight to the chase, they're parasitic. If clean magic involves focusing the casters inherent power, dirty magic involves stealing it from someone else. Porphyria (incidentally I love your posts, and the Job essay is fantastic!) wrote: > What I wonder is whether advanced Potions and certain Dark Arts require > the same skill set; the same (presumably difficult) ability to channel > magic without the help of a wand. The other feature of Potions-- it draws power from other living things (well, dead things, but the point holds). And this is where my Grand Unified Theory of Dark Arts neatly dovetails with Porphyria's speculations. Any magic not using a wand-- and thus not clearly drawing it's energy from the caster-- has the potential to be dark. Of course, the Unforgivables all use a wand-- but if there's so many other ways to hurt and kill people with magic, why are the Unforgivables, well-- unforgivable? I think it's because Crucio, Imperio, and AK all act by turning the subjects own body against him in a more profound way than a simple jinx. While we're at it, Elkins (I've also really enjoyed your posts in the backlog!) dismisses the potential Darkness of the Maurauder's Map to easily, I think. The thing is, I've always felt the Maurauder's Map has Dark magic in it. If Snape says it's "plainly" full of it, I mean-- he would know, wouldn't he? Isn't that a crazily powerful artifact for a bunch of teenagers to manufacture, no matter how precocious? How can it bypass the Unplottability of Hogwarts, not to mention reveal Polyjuice identities which must be pretty well concealed? And the first time Harry uses it, he acts briefly as if "following instructions" (this could easily be misdirection, but could it also be a mild Imperio? How DID the twins just happen to stumble across the "I solemly swear I am up to no good" incantation?) Obviously, the Map most closely resembles Riddle's Diary -- a notable feature of which was it's ability to drain Ginny of her life energy and transfer it to Tom. Is this why we shouldn't trust objects if we can't see where they keep their brains? Is it because they must then be helping themselves to some of ours? I hasten to say that I don't think MWPP were actually evil, or in Slytherin, or in fact Voldemort will turn out to be the good guy and James Potter the evil mastermind! I DO think that a gang of smart, over-confident, rule-agnostic teenagers would... dabble. Just a little weed behind the woodshed, mind. Its the same kind of innocent flirtation with Bad-Assness that led to them calling themselves "Marauders"-- I'm assuming they weren't raping and pillaging, but they thought it sounded cool. If when they were making the Map, they just HAD to charm it to use a teeny smidgen of the user's brain... well, what's the harm? It's just a game, after all... it's not REAL Dark Magic-- you know, like that Snape kid messes with.... If MWPP is at one end of the scale, Voldemort would be at the other-- how does he plan to pursue immortality, anyways? If my parasitic theory is true, he means to concoct some kind of monster energy-sucking spell. Transferring the life-energy of Muggles onto his elect crew of wizards perhaps? Vampires-- Dark Creatures-- do something similar after all. Oh! oh!--and the Werewolf curse certainly acts as a kind of parasite, leeching the host and using him to spread. > Well, while I can't prove wandless magic is Dark per se, there certainly > seems enough evidence to say that, apart from the most trivial spells, it > is considered problematic, possibly suspicious and worth tracking by the > Ministry. I also wonder if it will be addressed explicitly in future books. All things considered though, Rowling's attention span does seem to shorten precipitously when it comes to Magical Theory, given the vast number of 'Flints' (done my homework, oh noble List Elf) that cluster around complicated spells... maybe the Dark Arts are just Dark and that's it! PS-- > As we know, Potions does not involve "foolish wand-waving" which Snape > seems to be criticizing on account of it's obviousness. Potions are > "subtle," they simmer "softly," their power is "delicate," they "creep" > through veins, etc. Potions seem to share the same sneaky, underhanded > status as wandless jinxes and transformations; they lack the honest, > forthright, unconcealable visibility of wand use. If I was keen on feminist readings, I'd probably say something about the positive associations of nice 'forthright' . "male" wand magic, vs. sneaky, creepy, mysterious "female" *cauldron* magic, Voldemort reborn from artificial iron womb thus industrializing and appropriating the ... oh, forget I ever brought it up... Sorry for such a monster of a first post... "sydpad" From crussell at arkansas.net Thu Aug 22 21:37:40 2002 From: crussell at arkansas.net (bugaloo37) Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 21:37:40 -0000 Subject: Voldemort: Evil Overlord or Careful Planner? (WAS: Is Harry More Powerful..) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43030 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "erisedstraeh2002" wrote: > Dumbledore is grooming Harry for something, most likely a show-down > with Voldemort in Book 7. . . Why Harry has to be the one to vanquish Voldemort is a > question I'd like to hear theories from the group on (or references > to previous posts) - I think it has something to do with why > Voldemort wanted to kill him in the first place, which I think has to > do with his being the Heir of Gryffindor. > This brings up an interesting question: How many people know WHY Voldemort wanted to kill Harry? We can assume that Dumbledore knows because when Harry asked him-he told him he could not reveal the reason. Of course, Voldemort knows-but how many of the DEs know?- Pettigrew? Malfoy? Snape? How many of Dumbledore's gang knows?- Hagrid? McGonagal? Sirius? Lupin? Obviously, quite a few- how else would Harry have the amount of protection he has had? I agree that this "secret" is they key to the HP series-the ultimate goal of which is the destruction of Voldemort. IMO, there has to be a connection between Voldemort's desire for Harry's death and Voldemort's demise. Fear of destruction or the quest for some secret power hidden within Harry (the secret of immortality perhaps-ie..all the references to the phoenix?, his mother's green eyes?, being the heir of Gryffindor?) seems to be the driving force behind Voldemort's actions in regards to Harry. Harry is the key-why?- we can only guess!!! bugaloo37-biting her nails until book 5 comes out. From bard7696 at aol.com Fri Aug 23 00:41:38 2002 From: bard7696 at aol.com (darrin_burnett) Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 00:41:38 -0000 Subject: Fred and George: The Bullies You Do Know In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43031 Elkins wrote all kinds of stuff and I can't resist myself: > > Hmmm. Well, there's Draco Malfoy and his cronies, of course. In PoA, they sneer at Draco for running into their cabin while fleeing the dementor on the Hogwarts Express. Hold up! Were you just planning to ignore the five pages before where Malfoy is giving Harry the razzing over being afraid of the dementors? Here's the canon. UK version: Pg 69: "You fainted, Potter? Is Longbottom telling the truth? You actually fainted?" Then Malfoy BLOCKS THE WAY to the castle entrance to razz Harry and Ron more and insult Lupin besides. Then, right before poor little Draco gets the treatment from the big bad twins on page 75 "As they passed, Malfoy did a ridiculous impression of a swooning fit and there was a roar of laughter." Then Pansy Parkinson joined in, AND THEN, George asks Harry what's bothering him and Ron answers Malfoy and then George and Fred tell Harry and Ron AND NO ONE ELSE, that Malfoy was afraid as well. There was no mention of them running Malfoy out of the compartment. No mention of them broadcasting it around the school, LIKE MALFOY DID. No mention of them even talking to Draco. Absolutely nothing in canon to support that they did anything nasty to Draco beyond talking quietly and calmly about him behind his back. Just two guys, making Harry feel better by telling him Malfoy wasn't exactly Dementor Defender either. They didn't bully Draco. They helped Harry deal with THE BULLY Draco, and did it with no muss, fuss, nor humiliation to Draco. In GoF, they hex him and his (unarmed!) buddies in the back, leave them lying unconscious on the floor of a train in the middle of London, and then *step* on them while they're out cold. This, I would add, at a point in the tale when they have become legal adults. Not a whole lot of noblesse oblige going on there. Not much in the way of chivalry. Not the sort of behavior that represents an assumption of the mantle of adulthood. Of course, the fact that Draco has just insulted and threatened Fred and George's friends and by extension, said that the "Muggle-lovers" will be killed first. Who is a Muggle-lover? Fred and George's dad, that's who. Perhaps they were a little over- exuberant, but jeez, you'd think Draco and his gang were just little fluffy bunnies, innocent as the mountain rain. And exactly how can a wizard be unarmed? Unless Draco is so stupid as to walk into HRH's train compartment without his wand. > And...let's see. Who else? Well, there's Dudley. Ton-tongue toffee, anyone? The kid is three years younger than they are, and he's a muggle besides; it is plain to see that he is absolutely *petrified* of magic, and the twins are passing him cursed sweets. > No, they are throwing cursed sweets in his general direction and the little pig with no self-control snaps them up. Is there a reasonable assumption, even a fervent hope, that he eats them? Sure. But the best pranks are the ones the prankee walks into of his own accord and Dudley fell for it. And forgive me, but I have a hard time shedding a tear when a bully like Dudley -- you want me to dig up the canon references for Harry getting physically assaulted by Dudley? -- gets it from a bigger bully. That is what is happening. A kid who has lived his entire short life by bullying weaker kids gets a comeuppance. I don't cry. I cheer. > Oh, and then there's little Malcolm Baddock. Eleven years old, it's his very first day at school, the poor kid's probably scared out of his gourd to begin with, he's just been sorted into Slytherin, and on his way to the table, big strong sixteen-year-old Fred and George actually *hiss* him. > > You know, we've never heard of even the Slytherins doing anything like that? Never once has there been a mention of *anyone* jeering, hissing, or booing at the Sorting Ceremony. Except for Fred and George, that is, because Fred and George are a couple of thuggish *cads.* No, the Slytherins just refuse to acknowledge Harry Potter when cited for bravery. Hissing is amateur night for them. And considering that every other non-Slytherin cheers at the downfall of Slytherin in SS/PS, I'd say you have your evidence that plenty of students besides Fred and George can't stand the Slyths and openly cheer at their misfortune. > They can't even manage to be nice to the Ever So Decent Cedric at the beginning of GoF. He's trying to be friendly, and they're scowling menacingly at him, just because he had the unmitigated gall to whip them once at Quidditch. What would they have been doing if their parents hadn't been around, one wonders. Beating him *up?* > Actually, they were civil. And it's pretty clear that the only reason Hufflepuff won the match is because of the Dementors. Was there sour grapes? Sure there were. (Interestingly enough, Amos Diggory was just as bad in his own way) Being 16 is not the end of the maturity scale, far from it. Fred and George are allowed sour grapes without being lumped in as Draco in red-and-gold. > See, this particular logic really hits all of my hot buttons, because in my experience, it's the logic that bullies *always* use to justify their actions. "If he weren't so snotty, we wouldn't have been forced to shove him in the locker." "She was really asking for it, the way she always dressed so badly and never stood up for herself." > It reminds me most uncomfortably, in fact, of those gruesome excuses > that people sometimes offer for committing sexual assault. "She was asking for it, wearing a short skirt like that!" "She just thought > that she was *IT,* so she needed to be taken down a peg." > > I don't find it compelling. To say the least. In what way is being somewhat stuffy and pompous a request for constant harrassment? In what way is arrogance a petition for physical assault? First, Percy is a different animal altogether. Inter-sibling rivalries are normal and this is Fred and George's way of dealing with "perfect Percy", who is obnoxious. And there is no evidence they have physically harmed Percy, or even seriously attempted to. (I don't consider the "locking him in a pyramid") anything more than a joke. So, we're left with Draco. This young little angel flaunts his wealth like a club, abuses those weaker (the knee-locker on Neville, for starters) constantly tries to get the Trio expelled, openly threatens Hermione and calls her the Wizard equivalent of the n-word. He threatens the Weasleys and continually bereates Ron for the crime of being poor. And that whole train compartment scene? It was three boys, including two thugs, against two smaller boys and a girl. Real fair odds for Draco and his gang. Yeah, real classy. Someone I want my son to grow up to be. On the other hand, if my son grows up to someday defend the Neville's and Hermione's of the world, and stands up for his little brother, I'll consider I've done a damn good job. Darrin -- Dementor Defenders. Good band name. From abigailnus at yahoo.com Fri Aug 23 01:35:38 2002 From: abigailnus at yahoo.com (abigailnus) Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 01:35:38 -0000 Subject: Fred and George: The Bullies You Do Know In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43032 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "ssk7882" wrote: > Now, I know that everyone else in the entire universe just adores > the twins. I know that they're popular characters. And indeed, they >have been very nice to Harry -- and I do appreciate it when the >characters are nice to Harry. > > But I just have to say it. I do not like the twins. At all. I think that >they are a pair of mean insensitive bullies, and I tend to feel that the >only reason that readers don't generally perceive them as such is >because we see the story through Harry's eyes -- and Harry happens >to be inside of the magic circle of people the twins perceive as their >in-group, and who are therefore protected from their harrassment. You know, I've had the feeling for a long time that, as a group, we tend to over-analize the Harry Potter books - at least past a certain point. There are certain elements of the books that I am just sure that JKR never gave as much thought to as we have. Sometimes, I suspect, the answers to many a thorny dilemma are simply "because it's funny", or "because it was more dramatic that way", or "because JKR never gave it that much thought". Now, obviously, this isn't the case with every discussion, especially when dealing with an author as fond of foreshadowing as JKR is, but I believe it is especially true when it comes to the more comic elements of the books. With almost no exception, the humor in the Harry Potter books tends to be broad and on the slapstick side, and if I weren't too lazy to go downstairs and get my books, I could probably come up with a dozen examples of actions which, if one looks too carefully into them, are actually quite rude and insensitive, but when you don't think of them too much are very funny. Fred and George Weasly, as the chief suppliers of comic relief in the books, tend to be responsible for most of these actions, but I find it hard to believe that we are meant to read any insight from this into their character. I honestly believe that in most of these cases, JKR's reasoning doesn't go any further than "this is funny." This is something of a disservice to the characters, making them the purveyors of cheap laughs and nothing more, but let's face it, Fred and George aren't that important. They have no apparent role in the grand scheme of things. Harry even tells them that in the coming war, their job is going to be making people laugh and forget about their troubles - a possible meta statement from JKR? The argument here seems to be with JKR's sense of humor, not her characterization. So I find any attempt to read too much depth into the twins a bit futile (with one possible exception to be mentioned later.) However, even if I were to try and take the twins' actions seriously, and judge them as I would judge people acting in the real world, then I think the label "bullies" is a bit extreme. A bully, to my mind, is a power freak. A person who feels the need to humiliate and terrify others in order to feel powerful. This behaviour usually stems from low self esteem, and when a bully is stripped of his or her power or is faced with someone more powerful, they tend to implode (as we see in the case of Dudley Dursley.) I really don't think this describes the twins. I've never perceived them as needing anyone's attention, approval, or adoration. In fact, the twins form such an insular unit that it's hard to tell them apart, and I can hardly remember ever seeing one of them acting without the other. Whereas Harry has a group of three or four friends that he hangs out with, the twins spend most of their time with each other (lip service is paid to the notion that Lee Jordan is their friend, but he is never involved in any of their pranks and jokes, which are arguably the activities that define them.) I find it hard to draw from this self-containment the image of people who crave power, and as for insecurity, what could make you more secure than the knowledge that there is someone who is always in your corner, who will always support you and be on your side? How could an insecure person grow out of this relationship? Fred and George are teasers and practiacly jokers. Their actions are similar to those of bullies, but their intentions aren't. At their best, Fred and George are being playful and high-spirited, and are unaware of the fact that they might be causing pain to others. At their worse, they are almost unbearably callous. Neither of these traits make them bullies, or even bad people. Am I the only person who is flashing on an early episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, in which Xander is possessed by a hyena spirit and begins acting quite cruelly? Specifically, I'm thinking of this wonderful exchange betwenn Buffy and her mentor, Giles: Giles: Xander's taken to teasing the less fortunate? Buffy: Uh-huh. Giles: And, there's been a noticeable change in both clothing and demeanor? Buffy: Yes. Giles: And, well, otherwise all his spare time is spent lounging about with imbeciles. Buffy: It's bad, isn't it. Giles: It's devastating. He's turned into a sixteen-year-old boy. Course, you'll have to kill him. Legal adults or not, the twins are sixteen year old boys. They are, by definition, idiots. I've known my share of these guys. I've been teased by my share of them, and I really, really hated them at the time (which was 5-7 years ago.) Today I should imagine that most of them have grown up and gotten over it, but more importantly, I have. It's only when people get to be 21 and still act like 16 year old imbeciles that we have the right to judge them (and I've met my share of that kind as well.) I suspect that in a few years the twins will mellow out and become normal, if a bit boistrous, members of society. Or, at least, that's what would happen in the real world. If JKR is truly interested in the twins solely for comic relief than she will never let them grow out of their behaviour, and I can't say that this would bother me terribly. I don't take the twins seriously and I don't think I'm meant to. The only exception I can think of is the owlery scene in GoF. Here the twins are actually engaged in borderline illegal activity. This is serious stuff, and I think it's telling that this is the first time that we've ever seen them disagree and are able to tell them apart - suddenly Fred and George get to climb one rung up the ladder to fully-fleshed character. It's following this scene that Ron expresses his fears that Fred and George have an unhealthy and possibly dangerous obsession with making money. This leads me to wonder if the twins might not end up playing a prank that goes very wrong, or going a bit too far for something that they want. After all, we're all expecting a contemporary parallel to the famous prank, and we have been told the Fred and George could have given James Potter and Sirius Black a run for their money as pranksters. I doubt that we'll see anyting like this, though. First, Fred and George aren't important enough to be given such an important plot-line, especially when you consider the generational parallel. Second, at the end of GoF Harry effectively solves the twins' financial problems, thus removing the element of stress that might have led them to danger. A few more comments: > Well, what interactions have we actually seen between the twins and >students from outside of House Gryffindor? > > Hmmm. Well, there's Draco Malfoy and his cronies, of course. In PoA, >they sneer at Draco for running into their cabin while fleeing the dementor >on the Hogwarts Express. In GoF, they hex him and his (unarmed!) buddies >in the back, leave them lying unconscious on the floor of a train in the middle >of London, and then *step* on them while they're out cold. Not only do I find it hard to classify hexing Draco and his buddies as bullying (which is, after all, mostly about fear and humiliation. Having been knocked out immediately, Draco and his cronies had no time to feel either.) Not only do I think that it is unfair to lay the blame for the hexing solely at the twins feet - there were five people who performed the hexes, the twins are less then half of them. I also find it very hard to condemn Fred and George (and Harry and Ron and Hermione) for reacting the way they did. Was it wrong to hex Malfoy and his buddies? Yes. Was it wrong to step over them and leave them in the hall? Yes. Was the behaviour of all *five* responsible parties all but inexcusable? Hell yes. But is it impossible to understand? Well... In one sentence, Draco Malfoy manages to pick open a wound that is still very fresh, to threaten Harry, the twins' friend, and insult Ron, their brother. And the twins don't even like Draco, what with him being the son of the man who nearly cause their sister's death and having been taught from a young age that his entire family are up to no good (and it was you, Elkins, who suggested that this indocrination might have much deeper roots than just Arthur Weasly talking shop at home.) Is it any wonder the twins have a severe reaction? That doesn't mean I find this reaction correct, but I am saying that for 16 year-olds, it makes sense. And as for sneering at Malfoy in PoA, that is taken completely out of context. The twins were trying to make Harry feel better by letting him know that Malfoy, who had teased him for fainting when meeting the dementors, wasn't exactly Captain Courageous on the train - which I think is pretty sneer worthy. They also qualify this statement by immdiately saying that they were quite frightened themselves - how many bullies would admit such a thing? I think Malfoy was displaying bully-like behaviour in this case, not the twins. > > And...let's see. Who else? Well, there's Dudley. Ton-tongue toffee, >anyone? The kid is three years younger than they are, and he's a >muggle besides; it is plain to see that he is absolutely *petrified* of magic, >and the twins are passing him cursed sweets. I also found the ton-tongue toffee scene unpleasant, and once again I point to the double whammy of JKR's crude sense of humor and the twins' general immaturity. > Oh, and then there's little Malcolm Baddock. Eleven years old, it's his >very first day at school, the poor kid's probably scared out of his gourd >to begin with, he's just been sorted into Slytherin, and on his way to the >table, big strong sixteen-year-old Fred and George actually *hiss* him. This I can't really excuse, and as it served no particular comic purpose, I can't tell why JKR decided to include this. > They can't even manage to be nice to the Ever So Decent Cedric at the >beginning of GoF. He's trying to be friendly, and they're scowling menacingly >at him, just because he had the unmitigated gall to whip them once at Quidditch. >What would they have been doing if their parents hadn't been around, >one wonders. Beating him *up?* Oh, come on, give the kids a break. Look at Cedric - he's older than the twins, he's handsome, smart, popular, good with the girls, a great Quidditch player, and on top of all that he's nice, modest and friendly. How could they not hate him? Can you honestly tell me that you've never met a person like that and just hated them? And for the record, we have *never* seen the twins engage in physical violence. > Even when the twins target adults, it's always *vulnerable* adults. They >don't hurl snowballs at Professor McGonagall, do they? No, of course not. >They throw them at Professor Quirrell, whom they have every reason to >believe is indeed precisely what he appears to be: a stammering, shell-shocked >wreck of a wizard who is tottering right on the edge of a nervous collapse. > Once again, I have no excuse for that. I'm not saying that Fred and George are good kids - I'm just saying they are not bad kids, and certainly not bullies. >And what about Percy? The twins aren't picking on Percy because he has >injured them terribly through any particular action he has taken against them. > They're picking on him because he is *vulnerable,* and because they have >identified some trait that makes him, to their mind, "fair game," thus enabling >them to rationalize their behavior. In Percy's case, that trait happens to be >pomposity. But what if it had instead been ugliness? Or intellect? Or talent? >Or timidity? > I have never seen the twins' behavious towards Percy as bullying or in any way unbearable, and I certainly don't think he's in at all vulnerable. They're brothers, brothers pick on each other. Just because Percy is too full of himself to play the game doesn't mean Fred and George can't, and what do they do to him that's so terrible, anyway? They make fun of him for being proud of being a prefect. They tease him for his self-importance. They play with his head boy badge. We never see this have any adverse affect on him - I think it would take quite a bit more to deflate someone as stuck up as Percy, and I think the twins know that too. > Nor is it only animals. Into the "callous thoughtlessness" category, I would >also place the twins' remorseless teasing of Ginny in CoS. Now, I understand >that the twins actually didn't *mean* to be upsetting her that badly. They >were genuinely trying to cheer her up. They really did mean well. I appreciate >that. But they were so ridiculously *insensitive* that they didn't even notice >that she was heading straight for a nervous breakdown until Percy pointed it >out to them, at which point (to their credit) they did indeed cease and desist. I think this was meant to be a red herring. We were supposed to notice that Ginny was in a bad way, but to attribute it to the twins' pranks and not to Riddle's effect on her. In reality, I suspect that nothing that the twins did to Ginny could be worse than what was already going on in her own head. > -- Elkins, who really will feel very bad for the surviving twin if one of them is to die. On my list of characters who I fear might die, the twins are right down at the bottom, just below Hermione. You want to know the reason? It's because they're interchangeable. It's not like I can like one of them more than the other because, apart from the owlery scene in GoF, there never seems to be any difference between them. Can you really imagine JKR killing off a character who has no distinguishing characteristics except as part of a duo? Not only would the death be meaningless ("Oh no, she killed George! Or is it Fred?") but the remaining twin would be a useless character, unable to function on his own. Abigail, who has just notice that it is 4:30 and she will never wake up tomorrow. Any mistakes in this post are the fault of my fatigued state. From rvotaw at i-55.com Fri Aug 23 02:24:13 2002 From: rvotaw at i-55.com (Richelle Votaw) Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 21:24:13 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Wandless magic -- is is Dark in here or is it me? References: Message-ID: <014b01c24a4c$2d1c6240$1e9fcdd1@istu757> No: HPFGUIDX 43033 Phyllis provides the snip from the BBC JKR interview: > BBC: "Now, can I ask you: are there any special wizarding powers in > your world that depend on the wizard using their eyes to do > something? Bit like." > JKR: "Why do you want to know this?" > BBC: "I just vaguely wondered." > JKR: "Why?" > BBC: "Well because everyone always goes on about how Harry's got Lily > Potter's eyes?" > JKR: "Aren't you smart? There is something, maybe, coming about that. > I'm going to say no more. Very clever." Well there's got to be something there, what with all JKR's "Why are you asking" comments. Almost sounds like she was caught off guard by the question. So, with that in mind, I'm rethinking my theory of green eyes equaling Slytherin. Perhaps green isn't for Slytherin at all. Perhaps green is the color of power. And Salazar Slytherin would've chosen green because of that. Instances of green I can think of right off: 1) Green = Slytherin 2) Green = Lily and Harry's eyes 3) Green = light associated with AK curse. Definitely the most powerful curse--no countercurse, can't be blocked, etc. 4) Green = McGonagall's robes--not sure what this means, but I *like* her. I want her to do something great and powerful. :) Do any other spells have a green light? The expelliarumus is red, as is the stupefy (at least Dumbledore's is). Those not being the most powerful of spells. Don't get me wrong, they can pack quite a punch, but that seems to be based more on the intention of the wizard doing them, not the actual spell. (i.e. Lockhart flying across the room thanks to Snape's Expelliarmus--what a show off). Porphyria writes: > Can anyone think of anything else? To my mind Dumbledore does usually use > a wand when he's doing magic, but if I've left something out let me know. When *does* Dumbledore use a wand? I can only think of two instances. One being when the dementors came to the Quidditch match and Harry was falling from the broom, almost certainly to his death. Dumbledore waved his wand to slow Harry's fall as he ran out onto the field. Second time, when Moody/Crouch has Harry in his office after the third task and graveyard scene Dumbledore has his wand out to stupefy Moody/Crouch seconds before Harry was to be killed by Moody/Crouch. Both times Harry's life was at stake. There was the put-outter thingie, but it's still not a wand, rather a gadget. There could be times I'm forgetting, please remind me if I am. My brain is rather fried (fourth day of school with a new batch of first graders. I feel like I've been with 3 year olds all day.) so it's alltogether possible. Richelle From rvotaw at i-55.com Fri Aug 23 02:39:07 2002 From: rvotaw at i-55.com (Richelle Votaw) Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 21:39:07 -0500 Subject: "Delicate" Harry Message-ID: <015601c24a4e$41aa9cc0$1e9fcdd1@istu757> No: HPFGUIDX 43034 I'm a bit stuck on something, and before I get into it I'll admit I get stuck on the stupidest things. :) Anyway, what exactly is meant by "delicate" in reference to Harry? Let me elaborate first, starting with PoA: After the dementor incident on the train, Harry is shuffled off to McGonagall's office where Madam Pomfrey comes bustling in, clucking her disapproval over the matter and so on. Madam Pomfrey: "Yes, he's all clammy. Terrible things, they are, and the effect they have on people who are already delicate--" Harry: "I'm not delicate!" Which I thought was confirmed later on when Lupin explains to Harry exactly what is happening to him when the dementors come around. But in an interview (same BBC one referenced in earlier posts) JKR agrees with the interviewer when he/she says "Harry is delicate, isn't he?" So my point being, what is meant by delicate? It could be a simple case of the use of the word in British English versus American English. So that's why I'm posting this rather odd question. I've always taken "delicate" to mean sickly. Well, Harry's not sickly. He's only in the hospital for injuries, it's not like he's always got the flu or a virus or something. I suppose it could be taken to mean "emotionally delicate" which I would agree to. How do the rest of you view this wording? Thanks for helping me clear the cobwebs here! :) Richelle ------------------------------------ Richelle R. Votaw 1st grade teacher Kentwood Elementary ------------------------------------ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From porphyria at mindspring.com Fri Aug 23 03:09:17 2002 From: porphyria at mindspring.com (porphyria_ash) Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 03:09:17 -0000 Subject: Wandless magic -- is is Dark in here or is it me? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43035 Thanks, everyone, for the cool feedback on my wandless magic post. I'll reply to some replies. Phyllis retrieved this quote for me: << BBC: "Now, can I ask you: are there any special wizarding powers in your world that depend on the wizard using their eyes to do something? Bit like " JKR: "Why do you want to know this?" BBC: "I just vaguely wondered." JKR: "Why?" BBC: "Well because everyone always goes on about how Harry's got Lily Potter's eyes?" JKR: "Aren't you smart? There is something, maybe, coming about that. I'm going to say no more. Very clever." >> Phyllis, thank you so much. I remembered the part about green eyes being important, but not the context in which it was said. Well, that provides us with some speculation fodder, especially since the color green is so heavily associated with Slytherin and general HP sinisterness. Perhaps if, according to my theory, there is some kind of connection between the Dark Arts and wandless spells requiring eye contact, then maybe Lily was dabbling in a little Dark magic herself. Those of you who like to imagine a Snape/Lily relationship of some type can envision him giving her some Dark Arts tutoring on the sly during their teen years. Her green eyes could be a direct physical result of her experimentation -- and indicate a power that she could have found a way to transmit to Harry. This would provide Lily with much needed Edge, seeing as we've ruled out that she was either a member of House Slytherin or related to Salazar (sorry, I believe she was Just Plain Muggle). As I compose this post, Richelle is hard at work working out the significance of green. She writes: << Perhaps green isn't for Slytherin at all. Perhaps green is the color of power. And Salazar Slytherin would've chosen green because of that. >> Intriguing idea. There sure is a lot of green in the books; it must mean something. If I can come up with anything to add to this, I'll post it. Richelle also asked: << When *does* Dumbledore use a wand? >> Aside from what you mentioned, he also uses a wand when he summons the purple squashy sleeping bags in PoA. But we really don't see him use magic a whole lot, do we? I know he seems to be in charge of when the food appears on the plates at feasts, but I'd assumed that he simply signals the House Elves to banish the food from the kitchens to the tables with their own magic. I'll skim the books again and see what more I can come up with. Elkins said: << My gut feeling here (admittedly on the basis of very little in the way of canonical proof) is that the sort of magic that does not require a wand is primarily *old* magic, magic that predates the ritualized formulae developed by the Wizarding World. <...> ...these are the magics of myth and of fairy tale. They are *old* magics, older than the spell-casting of the ceremonial magician, with his Latinate incantations and his carefully formulated gestures. Old magics may well be suspect within the WW simply by virtue of being less controllable, less predictable -- and far less well-understood. >> I agree that we can make a useful distinction between the formalized sort of spells taught at Hogwarts and the ancient, as you say, mythopoetic kind. In fact, I wonder if the amount of power it requires to, say for instance, become an Animagus, i.e. to understand, control and predict old magic in a way the average wizard can't, renders the user of this kind of magic suspect just because it shows them to be so very powerful. It also makes we wonder if the sort of magic formally taught at Hogwarts might be limited to the more unsuspicious kind, i.e. the newer, Latinate kind because that's the most trusted kind. I'll use this space to develop my theory a bit more: I had imagined that wandless magic was analogous to the Real World equivalent of picking locks, hotwiring cars, hacking into computer systems and so forth. There might be some legitimate uses for these talents -- people accidentally lock themselves out of their homes and need a locksmith to get them back in -- but for the most part, even knowing how to do these things makes someone look suspicious since they lend themselves to criminal behavior so easily. Likewise, if using a wand makes magic so much easier, then why would someone want to cast a spell without one unless they had a sneaky reason. And because of this, these skills are not commonly taught. I took Driver's Ed. in high school and they never taught us to hotwire cars. :-) So I'm wondering if Hogwarts is the same way: there is more wandless magic than what Harry sees in class but they don't talk about it at school since Hogwarts sticks to the more controllable and "legitimate" kind. Elkins also made some very interesting remarks on Dark Magic items and Nova reminded me about Dumbledore using the Put-Outer in PS/SS. Just to clarify, I didn't originally have in mind enchanted objects or magical tools other than a wand, but you both make excellent points. I do agree with Elkins when she says: << The Weasley admonition against seemingly self-aware magical items strikes me as highly significant here. >> Yes, and I think both Arthur and Snape may have a "Dark until proven Not-Dark" attitude towards self-aware objects for a good reason: their use by criminal wizards. After all, Arthur works for the Misuse of Muggle Artifacts Department, so he sees a lot of cursed objects, and Snape might have cursed a few himself in the old days. Of course a lot of these Dark Objects are used for Muggle-baiting, and so obviously they would need to act "automatically" with no further direction from the wizard or knowing participation from the Muggle. In fact if Dumbledore's Put-Outer is merely a device for putting out street lights, perhaps it's a bit of a contraband Muggle-baiting object too. :-) (Or not -- BTW, Nova, I do love Cindy's theory about the Put-Outer and hope it's true.) Then sydpad said: << Just what makes the the Dark Arts dark? To cut straight to the chase, they're parasitic. If clean magic involves focusing the casters inherent power, dirty magic involves stealing it from someone else. >> Not a bad theory. I had been imagining wandless magic being "dark" because it was suspicious and therefore considered "dark," but I'm all in favor of a unified theory of what exactly are the Dark Arts. I think there really ought to be a particular quality that makes a spell inherently "Dark," something other than intent, which is too vague, otherwise the Dark Arts would not be a separate category of spells. I'll buy the "parasitic" idea. This is compatible with what some other posters have speculated, that Dark Arts might involve input from a demonic force, such as what Elkins suggests in her post about Divination (#35373) and Marina in #40578. In other words, perhaps any spell that begs, borrows or steals power from someone other than the caster is Dark. BTW, sydpad, flattery will get you everywhere with me and you can bring on the shameless Wand vs. Cauldron symbol analysis anytime you like. I love that sort of thing. >:-) ~~Porphyria From ajl at hanson.net Fri Aug 23 03:35:14 2002 From: ajl at hanson.net (dembeldei) Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 03:35:14 -0000 Subject: Fred and George: The Bullies You Do Know Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43036 From: ssk7882 "Well, there's Draco Malfoy and his cronies, of course... In GoF, they hex him and his (unarmed!) buddies in the back, leave them lying unconscious on the floor of a train in the middle of London, and then *step* on them while they're out cold." I cannot think of any place they have been more justified-- here after everyone toasts 'good, kind' Cedric's memory in the Great Hall, and Malfory insults his memory in the train... Dembeldei From purple_801999 at yahoo.com Fri Aug 23 03:49:44 2002 From: purple_801999 at yahoo.com (purple_801999) Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 03:49:44 -0000 Subject: Parents' attitude towards HP (was Re: Fred and George: The Bullies You Do Know) In-Reply-To: <006b01c24a27$d85c41e0$4a112b18@shprd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43037 Alina wrote- > That reminds me of something my mom said. She hasn't read the books, but watched the movie with the rest of the family when I got my DVD and here was her reaction to it: "It might be very exciting for kids, but a parent can'twatch this calmly." >Though the younger readers/movie watchers feel very sorry for Harry >and his life with his relatives and later happy for him when > he moves into Hogwarts, parents feel about it even stronger. My >mother said she couldn't stand seeing a child abused like that, being >a mother herself,even if it was just a movie. > > Of course, the book was intended for children not adults, but >Rowling herself is a mother, I wonder what she was feeling when she >herself wrote about Harry's life with the Dursleys. > A reviewer I read likened the Dursleys to characters out of Dickens novels with their exaggerated proportions and cruelty. But, if you want to get psychological, they also serve as useful stand-ends for a child's feelings of having horrible, unloving parents and bullying siblings who are petted and adored over them even if they really aren't. I recently read a quote about how every child no matter how loved has at one time or another hated their parents. With the awful Dursleys we have parent and sibling substitutes that a child can hate with out feelings of guilt getting in the way. If Harry's real parents treated him as the Dursleys do I doubt anyone could enjoy the series. But to have a more distant relation like an aunt and uncle doesn't seem to have the same horror of being mistreated by a parent. Even their names (Vernon, Petunia, Dudley, Marge Dursley)point towards unattractivness compared to Harry's family (James, Lily, Harry Potter). The Slytherins also are given deliberately unattractive names if you want to open that can of worms. Rowling seems to be following the time honored tradition of having a down trodden hero (and who among us hasn't felt a little down trodden at times?) who rises above his/her unhappy surrondings and many trials to find happiness in the end. -Olivia, Hey Darrin, how about the Dreadful Dursleys for a band name? > From dragonettefish at yahoo.com Fri Aug 23 01:56:22 2002 From: dragonettefish at yahoo.com (dragonettefish) Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 01:56:22 -0000 Subject: Harry Potter: Adult Version? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43038 What exactly is Harry Potter, the adult version? Do the change the words or the situations or what? Also, I believe Harry Potter at mikids might have a link or page dedicated to latin words in Harry Potter but Im not completely sure. Thank you! Jessica From millergal8 at aol.com Fri Aug 23 03:17:07 2002 From: millergal8 at aol.com (millergal8 at aol.com) Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 23:17:07 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Fred and George: The Bullies You Do Know Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43039 In a message dated 8/22/02 2:15:04 PM Pacific Daylight Time, skelkins at attbi.com writes: << And what about Percy? The twins aren't picking on Percy because he has injured them terribly through any particular action he has taken against them. They're picking on him because he is *vulnerable,* and because they have identified some trait that makes him, to their mind, "fair game," thus enabling them to rationalize their behavior. >> I think it is safe to say that we can discount any pranks on Percy as "proof" of the twins being bullies. I come from a family with one super smart med student sister and another fabulous sister who was the first born and has given my parents their grandkids. I constantly pull pranks and spout wisecracks at my sisters. This is simply the dynamics of the modern family. Each kid has role to play. Bill and Percy are brains, Charlie is a jock, Ginny is the only girl, and the twins are the pranksters. Don't ask me Ron's role, I have no idea and it is too awful to think of him as a traitor. As someone else stated earlier (sorry, i don't remember who) I imagine it was pretty hard to get noticed as children in the Weasley household. Negative attention is still attention in a child's eyes (especially when competing with 3 wonderful older sibs). As time went on they fell into the habit of teasing the other kids. I still find myself doing it, I don't need to, but when everyone gets together, we just fall into our typical roles. Again, the whole family dynamic thing. Sorry, just had to get that off my chest, call it the middle child syndrome if you will ;) As for the rest of the twins' pranks, I really do think it is simply for comic relief, not proof that the twins are bullies. Christy, who is proud that her friends liken her to Forge and Gred, and who cannot even begin to be confused with a bully. From Malady579 at hotmail.com Fri Aug 23 02:57:18 2002 From: Malady579 at hotmail.com (malady579) Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 02:57:18 -0000 Subject: "Delicate" Harry In-Reply-To: <015601c24a4e$41aa9cc0$1e9fcdd1@istu757> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43040 Richelle Votaw wrote: >>> I'm a bit stuck on something, and before I get into it I'll admit I get stuck on the stupidest things. :) Anyway, what exactly is meant by "delicate" in reference to Harry? Let me elaborate first, starting with PoA: After the dementor incident on the train, Harry is shuffled off to McGonagall's office where Madam Pomfrey comes bustling in, clucking her disapproval over the matter and so on. Madam Pomfrey: "Yes, he's all clammy. Terrible things, they are, and the effect they have on people who are already delicate--" Harry: "I'm not delicate!" So my point being, what is meant by delicate? ***medium cut*** I suppose it could be taken to mean "emotionally delicate" which I would agree to. How do the rest of you view this wording? <<< Ok, Me: I took delicate to mean that Harry is emotionally raw. He has had a very traumatic life and those emotions are right under the surface of his skin only because he has to function and move on with is life. He has never dealt with his past or even been able to face it really since no one will tell him the full truth yet. Harry is delicate because all this is bottled inside him and kept there by everyone treating him so special. Whether by gauking at his scar or speaking in whispers, frankly the whole magic world (the general populace of it) does not know how to take him. He is a hero/freak to them really. That can build up an odd concoction of emotions that are kept forced down. I mean the only time we see Harry cry is after the graveyard and he really does not even want to do that. Talking his experiences out does help, but gracious the boy has A LOT happen to him. He is delicate because he is so young and so experienced with the dark side of the magic world and yet also so in the dark with what is going on. I mean he was born into this fighting magic world, boarded away with his relatives (who were not much help with is disposition of mind at all), then surprise, he is throw back into the magic world with a welcome party from Quirrelmort his first year. This boy is delicate yet so resilient. And that is what makes him so odd and amazing and endearing. He survives in body...and heart. But underneath that skin, is a now fifteen year old boy that keeps getting attacked, keeps surviving barely, and still knows practically nothing. He mind must swim at night and would cause anyone to be "delicate". Gracious, that was a long paragraph, anyway, no boy, no matter the age, likes being called delicate. It goes against thier upbringing as the defenders of life, and defenders can not be delicate. Well not until now it seems. Melody From kristilynn5 at yahoo.com Fri Aug 23 02:57:46 2002 From: kristilynn5 at yahoo.com (Kristi Smith) Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 19:57:46 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] "Delicate" Harry In-Reply-To: <015601c24a4e$41aa9cc0$1e9fcdd1@istu757> Message-ID: <20020823025746.30158.qmail@web40310.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 43041 --- Richelle Votaw wrote: >So my point being, what is meant by delicate? It could be a simple case of the use of the word in British English versus American English. So that's why I'm posting this rather odd question. I've always taken "delicate" to mean sickly. Well, Harry's not sickly. He's only in the hospital for injuries, it's not like he's always got the flu or a virus or something. I suppose it could be taken to mean "emotionally delicate" which I would agree to. How do the rest of you view this wording? I say: I would agree that Harry is emotionally delicate in the sense that his past is so subpar. His parents being murdered in front of him and then being raised by the horrible Dursleys who treated him like "a dog who rolled in something smelly." I know that since I am a mother, I tend to have great empathy for children who are mistreated and neglected and would see them as fragile human beings. Kristi __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes http://finance.yahoo.com From purple_801999 at yahoo.com Fri Aug 23 04:23:44 2002 From: purple_801999 at yahoo.com (purple_801999) Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 04:23:44 -0000 Subject: Fred and George: The Bullies You Do Know In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43042 (Vicious, bloody hacking snipping) Abigail wrote- > > Fred and George are teasers and practiacly jokers. Their actions are similar > to those of bullies, but their intentions aren't. At their best, Fred and > George are being playful and high-spirited, and are unaware of the fact > that they might be causing pain to others. At their worse, they are almost > unbearably callous. Neither of these traits make them bullies, or even bad people. > > > > I think that is true and is easily found in large family where you have to fight to be noticed. Especially in a family full of over achievers like the Weasleys. The twins seem to fall back on humour as a way to deal (As I am much to the chagrin of my friends and family). In PoA it states "Fred and George were dealing with the pressure by being louder and even more exuberant than ever." (Chap.15) > > > And as for sneering at Malfoy in PoA, that is taken completely out >of context. The twins were trying to make Harry feel better by >letting him know that Malfoy, who had teased him for fainting when >meeting the dementors, wasn't exactly Captain Courageous on the >train - which I think is pretty sneer worthy. They also qualify >this statement by immdiately saying that they were quite frightened >themselves - how many bullies would admit such a thing? I think >Malfoy was displaying bully-like behaviour in this case, not the >twins. > Malfoy so far has deserved every bit of retribution he has gotten. He has tortured Harry for facing horrors that would make Malfoy wet his pants. Even as far back as PS when he and Harry are serving their detention in the Forbidden Forest Malfoy takes one look at Quirrelmort drinking unicorn blood and runs away screaming, leaving Harry behind. Makes you wonder what Malfoy will do if faced with the real deal. > Jenny wrote- > > They can't even manage to be nice to the Ever So Decent Cedric at the > >beginning of GoF. He's trying to be friendly, and they're scowling menacingly > >at him, just because he had the unmitigated gall to whip them once at Quidditch. > Ever So Decent people can be annoying as hell sometimes as Abigail pointed ou before I got snip happy. -Olivia, who loves the twins and knows that their always good for a laugh. From purple_801999 at yahoo.com Fri Aug 23 04:30:06 2002 From: purple_801999 at yahoo.com (purple_801999) Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 04:30:06 -0000 Subject: Harry Potter: Adult Version? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43043 Jessica wrote- > What exactly is Harry Potter, the adult version? Do the change the > words or the situations or what? Also, I believe Harry Potter at > mikids might have a link or page dedicated to latin words in Harry > Potter but Im not completely sure. Thank you! > The "adult" versions have what could be considered more mature covers that have stark black and white photos or gothic castles so adult readers can avoid the shame of reading about the adventures of a preteen wizard and his friends in public and avoid being beaten by literary snobs with copies of "War and Peace". The story remains the same. -Olivia From jodel at aol.com Fri Aug 23 04:38:31 2002 From: jodel at aol.com (jodel at aol.com) Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 00:38:31 EDT Subject: "Despiadado" Crouch and HumanRightsMartyr!Wilkes Message-ID: <159.12f784c0.2a971647@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 43044 Very much appreciated Elkins's summary on the debate over the policies Crouch Sr. instituted as Head of Magical Law Enforcement. >>First he (Sirius) mentions that the aurors were granted license to kill rather than to capture. Then he mentions that many people (other than he himself) were sent to prison without trial. And *then* he states that Crouch authorized the use of the Unforgiveables. Finally, he concludes that Crouch had become "as ruthless and cruel as many on the Dark Side." I have never assumed that the AK was the Unforgivable Curse to which Sirius was alluding here. He'd already covered that base when he cited the license to kill. No, I have always assumed that the Cruciatus -- and to a lesser extent, the Imperius -- were the relevant Unforgivables here.<< Yes indeed. Cruciatus to extract confession and Imperius to facilitate something like sting opperations to bring other suspects into range. Vile acts all of them, But it got results, and if the press was favorable it's small wonder that there was a growing faction who wanted Crouch for MoM. And, mind you, Sirius's summation of events was describing the situation as it was occuring AFTER Voldemort's first fall. It begins to sound to me like maybe the Lestranges and their remaining acomplice should be quietly given a medal... It sounds to me like the wizarding world had a lucky escape. Can you imagine how far into totalitarianism it would have spiraled under Crouch? I agree. Barty Crouch Sr. was one seriously evil wizard. Regardless of whose side he was on. -JOdel From elfundeb at comcast.net Thu Aug 22 18:17:30 2002 From: elfundeb at comcast.net (elfundeb) Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 14:17:30 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Fred and George: should we worry? (Was: next prank) References: Message-ID: <00bc01c24a08$2de6f620$3a3b3244@arlngt01.va.comcast.net> No: HPFGUIDX 43045 Jenny of Ravenclaw asked, long ago: Fred and George are quite the loveable scoundrels, are they not? Or are they? Has anyone ever thought of their pranks as a bit mean-spirited? "I do! I do!" The author of the Evil!Fred line of thinking could not leave such a question alone, though the post lay half-written for a week. But now, since Elkins responded, I am completing this post, because I now have company in my opinions: Now, I know that everyone else in the entire universe just adores the twins. I know that they're popular characters. And indeed, they have been very nice to Harry -- and I do appreciate it when the characters are nice to Harry. But I just have to say it. I do not like the twins. At all. Me: No! No! Everyone else *doesn't like the Twins." I don't like the Twins. I do not like them playing jokes. I do not like them hissing folks. I do not like them here or there. I do not like them anywhere. Jenny asked: When I first read GoF, I delighted in the Ton-Tongue Toffee scene. Boy, did I love picturing Dudley on his hands and knees in the living room, scooping up as many of the "brightly colored" toffees as his greedy hands could find. Me: I've always had difficulty accepting the humor in the scene, though that's clearly the way it's written -- full of comic timing and slapstick elements, with Dudley choking, Petunia getting hysterical, Vernon using the china figurines for target practice, and Arthur attempting to provide reassurance -- with an outstretched wand. Beneath the comedy, however, I see a highly dangerous prank. There was no guarantee that Dudley would eat the toffee before Mr. Weasley left. Had Dudley not noticed them lying around right away, or waited to pick one up, he would have been gagging and choking on that growing tongue with no means whatsoever to stop it. Even if Dudley wasn't in danger, his parents didn't know that. I could see the Dursleys resorting to something desperate, like cutting off Dudley's tongue, in an effort to save him from the horrific effects of witchcraft. I know the Accidental Magic Reversal Squad would've come upon the scene, and they probably could have magically corrected whatever harm had been done. But the arrival of the squad might also have caused problems for Arthur. Not only are his sons charming what appear to be Muggle objects, Arthur might have gotten in trouble for illegally connecting the Dursleys to the floo network. (The extent to which Arthur's little bending of the laws have contributed to the Twins' delinquency is for another post.) Darrin objected, saying: And forgive me, but I have a hard time shedding a tear when a bully like Dudley -- you want me to dig up the canon references for Harry getting physically assaulted by Dudley? -- gets it from a bigger bully. Me: But why should the Twins be going after Dudley? They claim it's because he's a "bullying git," which he is. But the Twins have never met Dudley. Besides, he's not chiefly responsible for Harry's miserable life at Privet Drive; Vernon and Petunia are the ones who have contrived to abuse Harry; Dudley only follows his parents' example. Dudley's an unfortunate scapegoat, IMO, because the Twins think it would be funny. (BTW -- and I know this is a digression but since I-Just-Don't-Like-Hagrid Jenny started this thread, I'll plunge ahead -- Hagrid does the same thing at the hut on the rock. After discovering how the Dursleys have kept Harry in ignorance of the WW, he first chastizes them and then gives Dudley a tail. But Dudley was just standing there, a convenient target for a pig joke. IMO, there was no justification for this.) Now, my question is this: Are we supposed to be reading the toffee episode at its surface, comic level, taking our cue from Harry's own amusement (he didn't want to leave and "miss the fun"). Or are we supposed to see the dark side of the twins' humor? Abigail suggested the former: There are certain elements of the books that I am just sure that JKR never gave as much thought to as we have. Sometimes, I suspect, the answers to many a thorny dilemma are simply "because it's funny", or "because it was more dramatic that way", or "because JKR never gave it that much thought". Yes, I fear, absolutely fear, that you may be right. But I hope not, and think there's some evidence to support both views. HF (yr awen) correctly pointed out the Twins' best quality: I agree that some of the stuff they do can be pretty mean, but they're also pretty staunch allies in Harry's camp. Me: Yes, and even I have to admit that giving the Marauder's Map to Harry shows generosity on a grand scale. It wasn't at all necessary to make a gift of the map just so Harry could get into Hogsmeade; they could have simply loaned it to him for the day. But they only gave it to him to support his rule-breaking; I get the sense that they don't see themselves as having any role in the Voldemort struggle; it's just that Harry is a superb Quidditch player, a fellow Gryffindor and an all-around Good Kid To Have Around. In some ways they're like bullies everywhere, who pick the *coolest* kids for their own circle. Frankielee (and others) suggested that this the Twins' exuberance is simply a normal outgrowth of being in a large family: They've obviously distinguished themselves from the other boys to Molly and Arthur by deliberately not choosing intellectual or political futures. It's not entirely in a good way, but as middle children, at least they are getting attention... But isn't this a problem for the other siblings? F&G command so much attention that other siblings get correspondingly less? Isn't the root of Ron's jealousy problems the fact that he lacks the twins' talent for attracting attention? Don't their actions just exacerbate Percy's relative isolation from his siblings? At the very least, this type of sibling rivalry really only functions well if everyone is able to give it as well as get it. Abigail suggests: Just because Percy is too full of himself to play the game doesn't mean Fred and George can't, and what do they do to him that's so terrible, anyway? They make fun of him for being proud of being a prefect. They tease him for his self-importance. They play with his head boy badge. We never see this have any adverse affect on him - I think it would take quite a bit more to deflate someone as stuck up as Percy, and I think the twins know that too. I have to disagree with the premise that the jokes do not affect Percy. There have been a number of posts in the past detailing the negative effects of the Twins' teasing on Percy and the Weasley family dynamic in general. See, for example, post # 37315 (by Barb Purdom). Percy does not know how to give it back, and it has isolated him from the family. And in post #38730, I suggested that the treatment of Percy has had a similarly negative effect on Ron. So I find it hard to accept the notion that it's all in the family. Jenny also asked: Many people dislike Snape, Draco, Rita Skeeter and some aren't even crazy about Ron - all because of their attitudes. Fred and George are funny and fun, and obviously talented wizards, but are they nice? Yes, they are funny and fun and talented. They are, in a word, entertainers, and they derive their energy from performing. But in their flair for the dramatic they hurt others, both in a physical sense (treading on Draco on the train) and a psychological sense (Percy's outsize pomposity). Others have pointed out incidents such as the hissing of Malcolm Baddock when he was sorted into Slytherin. I'll add, from PS/SS, that they made catcalls when Lavender Brown was sorted into Gryffindor. I checked my dictionary, which confirmed my understanding that a catcall is what the stereotypical construction worker does when an attractive young woman walks by (I do not want to offend any real construction workers here.) I consider it rude in the extreme, and it's no way to greet the first new Gryffindor of the year, especially an 11-year-old girl. Like the Malcolm Baddock greeting, this one struck a very sour chord with me. I cannot see any reason to include this -- because it's not funny to me -- except as a very early signal that the Twins do push the envelope too far sometimes. Jenny originally asked: Should we applaud them for their prank inventions and encourage them to do more? I for one would love to see them open a new jokes shop, but maybe they should be steered away from their current passions for practical jokes. Maybe they should be more heavily recruited to help Dumbledore and Harry in their battle against Voldemort and the DEs.: To which Elkins replied: As much as I dislike the twins, I think that they should definitely open their joke shop. It's what they really want to do, it's what will make them happy, they certainly have both the drive and the hustle to succeed in business, and their joke items are obviously very well-crafted. Indeed, the twins so strike me as exceptionally talented. And besides, selling their gag products would be a *productive* outlet for their sadistic brand of humor. Harry's right: the WW is going to need its yuks, and apparently a lot of people in the WW actually find the twins' sense of humor funny. I have two thoughts on F&G's fate. Now that they've got the thousand Galleons Harry gave them, they can get inventing. But, as Ron points out in GoF, most of the stuff they create is really dangerous. And I can't help seeing certain other characteristics as subtle clues that there may be more to this "get inventing" than the surface, comic relief role that most readers assign to the Twins. Porphyria, in her follow-up post on the darkness of wandless magic, hinted at one of them: I had imagined that wandless magic was analogous to the Real World equivalent of picking locks, hotwiring cars, hacking into computer systems and so forth. There might be some legitimate uses for these talents -- people accidentally lock themselves out of their homes and need a locksmith to get them back in -- but for the most part, even knowing how to do these things makes someone look suspicious since they lend themselves to criminal behavior so easily. Exactly. Yet it appears that I'm the only reader who thought it extremely odd that the Twins arrived to rescue Harry on CoS armed with lockpicking tools. Why would wizards living exclusively in the wizarding world need to pick locks? Why? I solemnly swear they are up to no good. And, as Abigail pointed out: The only exception I can think of is the owlery scene in GoF. Here the twins are actually engaged in borderline illegal activity. This is serious stuff, and I think it's telling that this is the first time that we've ever seen them disagree and are able to tell them apart - suddenly Fred and George get to climb one rung up the ladder to fully-fleshed character. It's following this scene that Ron expresses his fears that Fred and George have an unhealthy and possibly dangerous obsession with making money. Me: Well, I'd quibble with the suggestion that Fred and George have been indistinguishable until now. I see a big difference between Fred and George. The books are full of instances of kindnesses from George (catalogued in ## 37532 and 37604). There are *very* few initiated by Fred; the only one I can think of is his kind words to Harry in the hospital in the "Grim Defeat" chapter of PoA. But I've cited the Owlery scene as hinting at the Twins' dark future before, and got a lot of flak for it. Well, the Twins are not lacking in charisma. So I see two alternatives. One possibility is they will invent something that will be used with great effect in the battle against Voldemort, and its use will provide much-needed comic relief in a Book 7 that it otherwise very grim. They certainly have the talent for this, and it would do a great deal to soften Molly's opinion of them. But it would be boring. And it would give a very large presence in the books to two characters with little plot significance. On the other hand, there's a (much Bangier) possibility that they will simply keep inventing that dangerous stuff and sell it to the public, in the spirit of entrepreneurs everywhere. In that case, I have a theory that the biggest customer, or maybe a financier, of the joke shop will turn out to be a front person for Voldemort, who intends to use F&G's products for their own ends. In blackmailing Ludo Bagman to get him to pay up on an illegal gambling debt, the Twins have shown a willingness to push the rules to the limit. Fred actually admits that it's blackmail: George says it's blackmail, Fred says it's time to play dirty, George says if it's in writing it's blackmail, and Fred shuts him with "Yeah, and you won't be complaining if we get a big fat payoff . . . ." (p. 566 U.S.)). If they've played fast and loose with the rules as they've done at Hogwarts, they may find themselves being blackmailed themselves, and by a Dark wizard whose powers of persuasion they will find difficult to resist. Canon support? Well, Ludo Bagman, who's on my Ever So Evil! short list, was *very* interested in their stuff. A "bagman" is a front person in an illegal scheme, and though Bagman was definitely involved in illegal gambling in GoF, he was not presented as a front for someone else. And now that the Twins have actually tried to blackmail him . . . . I'm probably being a bit Snapelike about this, as in RL I have a tendency to wish for people who flaunt the rules for laughs, and gain enormous popularity for doing so, to be taken down a notch or two. But the Twins *are* mean, and my gut feeling is that JKR has thrown in enough over-the-top incidents involving the Twins to have prepared us for them getting into very deep trouble, from which they will find it very difficult to escape. I'd find that much more interesting than comic relief. Debbie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From ajl at hanson.net Fri Aug 23 06:41:12 2002 From: ajl at hanson.net (dembeldei) Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 06:41:12 -0000 Subject: Subject: Re: "Delicate" Harry Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43046 Richelle Votaw: "Madam Pomfrey: "Yes, he's all clammy. Terrible things, they are, and the effect they have on people who are already delicate--" Harry: "I'm not delicate!" So my point being, what is meant by delicate?... I suppose it could be taken to mean "emotionally delicate" which I would agree to." I thought this was an example of more effects from Rita Skeeter's influence on readers in GOF- Molly Weasley and Viktor Krum initially believed the article that he had been dating Hermione; because of the article suggesting he was disturbed/dangerous/deranged, students started steering far of Harry and Fudge discounted his graveyard account. So it seems Madame Pomfrey has also bought into the 'emotionally unstable' story. Dembeldei From jenP_97 at yahoo.com Fri Aug 23 06:51:40 2002 From: jenP_97 at yahoo.com (jenp_97) Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 06:51:40 -0000 Subject: Subject: Re: "Delicate" Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43047 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "dembeldei" wrote: > Richelle Votaw: > "Madam Pomfrey: "Yes, he's all clammy. Terrible things, they are, and > the effect they have on people who are already delicate--" > Harry: "I'm not delicate!" > So my point being, what is meant by delicate?... > I suppose it could be taken to mean "emotionally delicate" which I > would agree to." > > I thought this was an example of more effects from Rita Skeeter's > influence on readers in GOF- Molly Weasley and Viktor Krum initially > believed the article that he had been dating Hermione; because of the > article suggesting he was disturbed/dangerous/deranged, students > started steering far of Harry and Fudge discounted his graveyard > account. So it seems Madame Pomfrey has also bought into > the 'emotionally unstable' story. > > Dembeldei While I'm not saying that Harry hasn't had articles written about his "emotional delicacy" in the past, I have to take issue with Dembledei's references. Because the quote above is taken from PoA, and we don't meet Rita Skeeter (and see her influences) until GoF, it's not a wise idea to use her as your "proof". We have no idea if Skeeter was the author of any stories prior to GoF about Harry (although IMO, it's pretty likely), so if you're going to go with examples from canon to back up your story, you're going to have to find something else. Personally, I think Madam Pomfrey is just a concerned person who's seen Harry a few too many times for her pleasure, and who is probably just overreacting (because of her dislike of the dementors) in this situation... her mouth is just spitting out her "running commentary" on the situation. Just picking nits... JenP, who should be in bed right now... From jenw118 at HotPOP.com Fri Aug 23 03:33:28 2002 From: jenw118 at HotPOP.com (Jennifer R. Wilson) Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 22:33:28 -0500 (Central Daylight Time) Subject: [HPforGrownups] "Delicate" Harry References: <015601c24a4e$41aa9cc0$1e9fcdd1@istu757> Message-ID: <3D65AD08.000001.14257@oemcomputer> No: HPFGUIDX 43048 Richelle's opinion/question below: <00bc01c24a08$2de6f620$3a3b3244@arlngt01.va.comcast.net> Message-ID: <00f301c24a7d$503652a0$badef718@kzo.chartermi.net> No: HPFGUIDX 43049 Debbie said: But why should the Twins be going after Dudley? They claim it's because he's a "bullying git," which he is. But the Twins have never met Dudley. Besides, he's not chiefly responsible for Harry's miserable life at Privet Drive; Vernon and Petunia are the ones who have contrived to abuse Harry; Dudley only follows his parents' example.<<<<<<<< I would have to respectfully disagree with you there. Vernon and Petunia contrive to abuse Harry mentally and emotionally (and neglect him physically), we have ample proof of that. Dudley, however, is a physical tormentor who ruthlessly uses his size and strength to beat Harry up and "kick him around like a football." Further, Dudley is a part of an entire social structure that keeps Harry ground down; it's not enough that Dudley tortures him at home, but he takes his machinations to school as well. In Harry's assessment of his unlikely status as a wizard in PS/SS, Dudley figures prominently in his reckoning: "Hagrid looked at Harry with warmth and respect blazing in his eyes, but Harry, instead of feeling pleased and proud, felt quite sure there had been a horrible mistake. A wizard? Him? How could he possibly be? He'd spent his life being clouted by Dudley and bullied by Aunt Petunia and Uncle Vernon; if he was really a wizard, why hadn't they been turned into warty toads every time they'd tried to lock him in his cupboard? If he'd once defeated the greatest sorceror in the world, how come Dudley had always been able to kick him around like a football?" And this is without the other references to Dudley using Harry as a punching bag, or Petunia/Vernon finding some way to marginalize him. If that's not a carefully-engineered system of physical and mental abuse finally paying off, and manifesting itself in such a way as to make a theoretically good moment one full of self-doubt and uncertainty, I don't know what is. Debbie: Dudley's an unfortunate scapegoat, IMO, because the Twins think it would be funny. (BTW -- and I know this is a digression but since I-Just-Don't-Like-Hagrid Jenny started this thread, I'll plunge ahead -- Hagrid does the same thing at the hut on the rock. After discovering how the Dursleys have kept Harry in ignorance of the WW, he first chastizes them and then gives Dudley a tail. But Dudley was just standing there, a convenient target for a pig joke. IMO, there was no justification for this.)<<<<<<< He wasn't *just* standing there. At the beginning of the scene, when Hagrid begins making his tea and sausages, Dudley fidgets a bit, which prompts Vernon to admonish him not to take anything from Hagrid and Hagrid to reply that "Yer great puddin' of a son don' need fattenin' anymore, Dursley, don' worry." Dudley's fear of magic is conquered only by his appetite, which would bring me to a long digression on JKR's weird fairytale methodology, but I'll avoid that for the time being -- it applies more to another thread on Petunia and Vernon's abuse, as it is. Debbie: Exactly. Yet it appears that I'm the only reader who thought it extremely odd that the Twins arrived to rescue Harry on CoS armed with lockpicking tools. Why would wizards living exclusively in the wizarding world need to pick locks? Why? I solemnly swear they are up to no good.<<<<<<<< There's one very good reason as to why the Twins would want to be armed with non-Magic lockpicking tools and why JKR needs them to be: As of Harry's rescue in CoS, he's already had one citation from the Ministry for using magic outside Hogwarts. Another one, according to Mafalda Hopkirk, could lead to expulsion from school. JKR, for practical purposes, has to avoid "further spellwork" at Privet Drive and get Harry out sans incantation -- and giving the twins (and Ron) the ability to pick locks without resorting to the alohomora charm, which charm would *definitely* be on Ministry radar, allows her to have the twins rescue Harry without getting caught. Up to no good? No doubt of it, but very practical and in this case, it gets the plot advanced without MOMmy's interference. Debbie (in reference to Jenny's question as to whether F&G are "nice"): Yes, they are funny and fun and talented. They are, in a word, entertainers, and they derive their energy from performing. But in their flair for the dramatic they hurt others, both in a physical sense (treading on Draco on the train) and a psychological sense (Percy's outsize pomposity).<<<<<<<<<<< This would probably refer in a dark sort of way to Will Rogers, who once said, "Everything is funny as long as it is happening to somebody else." Humor, and those who engage in it, is rarely ever "nice," but people who read and write satiric and humorist columns like The Onion aren't in it for "nice." There are times when "nice" isn't even a prerequisite to liking someone, or appreciating their talent/funniness, as Debbie states above; some people (and by people I mean readers) like Snape because he's a snarky, sarcastic rat-youknowwhat, in addition to being the mysterious DE convert and all that. : I'm probably being a bit Snapelike about this, as in RL I have a tendency to wish for people who flaunt the rules for laughs, and gain enormous popularity for doing so, to be taken down a notch or two. But the Twins *are* mean, and my gut feeling is that JKR has thrown in enough over-the-top incidents involving the Twins to have prepared us for them getting into very deep trouble, from which they will find it very difficult to escape. <<<<<<<<<<< I personally find it strange that I'm going to bat for the twins, mostly because if I knew them in real life I probably wouldn't be able to stand them. I would wish long, agonizing deaths and unspeakable torments for them in their afterlives, and place curses on their firstborn children. Fortunately, as a schoolkid I was safe in my obscurity from most of the Fred-n-George types (except for a couple, but they'll pay for it sooner or later... um, I mean, they'll see the error of their wa -- argh! I'm sure they'll grow up someday and pull their heads out of their... I give up.) Needless to say, though, they irritated me greatly even in the comparative safety of my geekness. Now however, I find myself reacting... well, in a maliciously juvenile sort of way, much like Harry. Maybe it's because F&G are very safely on the printed page, whereas I am not, I don't know. And finally, Elkins: who really will feel very bad for the surviving twin if one of them is to die. Honestly. She will. And that won't be a smirk you'll be seeing on her face either. It will just *look* like a smirk, but it will actually be an...um, er, an attempt to, uh, to choke back her sobs. Really.<<<<<<<<< Careful there. Sounding terribly twin-like. I find it difficult to understand how you can so eloquently argue against F&G based on their mean-spirited thuggishness and then conclude a post that seems toned in such a way as to echo that mean-spiritedness condemned earlier. Although I can understand sarcasm, but still, sarcasm dwells in the realm of humor being so rigorously examined here. HF. who will herself probably grow more vindictive and spiteful as she grows older. Oh, well. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From crana at ntlworld.com Fri Aug 23 09:29:24 2002 From: crana at ntlworld.com (rosie) Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 10:29:24 +0100 Subject: Fred & George - are they bullies? Short post. Message-ID: <001001c24a87$9c3bcb80$81b068d5@xxx> No: HPFGUIDX 43050 I'm sorry this is short, I never seem to have anything to say any more. Elkins, I enjoyed reading your post about Fred and George. You know when you said that "he/she deserved it" was a bad justification for doing something to someone, I was just wondering: How did you feel when Hermione caught Rita and imprisoned her in a jar for what she did to her, Hagrid and Harry? Rosie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Ali at zymurgy.org Fri Aug 23 10:21:44 2002 From: Ali at zymurgy.org (alhewison) Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 10:21:44 -0000 Subject: Parents' attitude towards HP and (simplistic) HP/Dahl comparison In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43051 > > Alina wrote- > Of course, the book was intended for children not adults, but Rowling herself is a mother, I wonder what she was feeling when she herself wrote about Harry's life with the Dursleys. Is it? I thought that JKR has said that she wrote the books for herself - an adult. They have been marketed for children, but they are seen as amongst a few books now viewed as "cross-over" ie for adults and children alike. Surely HPFGU bears testimony to the fact that the books contain alot of material to intrigue and interest a more adult audience. I do agree that adults will carry different emotional baggage into their reading of the books than children will. However, this "baggage" will differ greatly from adult to adult, just as it will from child to child. I personally feel very strongly about Harry and his treatment at the Dursleys. I think that although some of this is maternal instinct - how could "parents" be so cruel, it is also empathy. I share and enjoy Harry's triumphs over his former oppressors. > > Olivia wrote:- A reviewer I read likened the Dursleys to characters out of Dickens novels with their exaggerated proportions and cruelty. But, if you want to get psychological, they also serve as useful stand-ends for a child's feelings of having horrible, unloving parents and bullying siblings who are petted and adored over them even if they really aren't. I see a much stronger resemblance between the Dursleys with the charactures of Roald Dahl. Take James and the Giant Peach for example. Even the heroes names are similar: James Henry Trotter v. Harry James Trotter. James is brought up by a thin aunt (Aunt Spiker) - Aunt Petunia and a fat aunt (Aunt Sponge) -Uncle Vernon. He sleeps in a locked room with a barred window. The similarities go on... > Olivia again:- > I recently read a quote about how every child no matter how loved has at one time or another hated their parents. With the awful Dursleys we have parent and sibling substitutes that a child can hate with out feelings of guilt getting in the way. If Harry's real parents treated him as the Dursleys do I doubt anyone could enjoy the series. But to have a more distant relation like an aunt and uncle doesn't seem to have the same horror of being mistreated by a parent. I do agree that the charactures are more funny because they are only Harry's guardians. But their treatment is aborrment because no child should be so abused by someone in a position of trust. In a recent and tragic case in Britain 2 young girls were abducted and murdered. This terrible crime has rocked the country, but what has shocked people most is that it now seems that the perpetuators were known to the girls. One was their classroom assistant, the other was her fiance and caretaker at a nearby school. Any crime like this is terrible, but the question now being asked is who can be trusted? We can tell children not to talk to strangers, but can't we expect them to be safe in the hands of carers? Harry has been let down and mistreated by the Dursleys in a way that makes all readers regardless of age feel for him and with him. Olivia:- > Rowling seems to be following the time honored tradition of having a down trodden hero (and who among us hasn't felt a little down trodden at times?) who rises above his/her unhappy surrondings and many trials to find happiness in the end. Certainly, JKR is leading Harry down the "heroic path". I only hope that you are right and that he will find happiness in the end! Ali > From bard7696 at aol.com Fri Aug 23 11:45:18 2002 From: bard7696 at aol.com (darrin_burnett) Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 11:45:18 -0000 Subject: Fred and George: should we worry? (Was: next prank) In-Reply-To: <00bc01c24a08$2de6f620$3a3b3244@arlngt01.va.comcast.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43052 Debbie wrote: > > Darrin objected, saying: > > And forgive me, but I have a hard time shedding a tear when a bully > like Dudley -- you want me to dig up the canon references for Harry > getting physically assaulted by Dudley? -- gets it from a bigger > bully. > > Me: > But why should the Twins be going after Dudley? They claim it's because he's a "bullying git," which he is. But the Twins have never met Dudley. Besides, he's not chiefly responsible for Harry's miserable life at Privet Drive; Vernon and Petunia are the ones who have contrived to abuse Harry; Dudley only follows his parents' example. Dudley's an unfortunate scapegoat, IMO, because the Twins think it would be funny. (BTW -- and I know this is a digression but since I-Just-Don't-Like-Hagrid Jenny started this thread, I'll plunge ahead -- Hagrid does the same thing at the hut on the rock. After discovering how the Dursleys have kept Harry in ignorance of the WW, he first chastizes them and then gives Dudley a tail. But Dudley was just standing there, a convenient target for a pig joke. IMO, there was no justification for this.) > > Now, my question is this: Are we supposed to be reading the toffee episode at its surface, comic level, taking our cue from Harry's own amusement (he didn't want to leave and "miss the fun"). Or are we supposed to see the dark side of the twins' humor? This is the only place you directly asked me, so that's why I did major snippage. Dudley is NOT an unfortunate scapegoat. While Vernon and Petunia take care of Privet Drive, Dudley takes over at school. He has his gang beat Harry up, and ensures that Harry has no friends. Thanks to his influence, Harry is miserable at school, which otherwise would be more of a refuge from Privet Drive. So, while the parents are still setting the lead, it is obvious that Dudley takes it and runs with it and doesn't just bully Harry for show in front of them. But overall, how are we supposed to respond? Mainly, I don't think we're supposed to be this sympathetic to gluttonous, whiny, bullying, crybabies like Dudley anymore than we're supposed to be sympathetic to the evil stepsisters in Cinderella. For once, I wish people would look at the original victim of the bullying: Harry. It's not Dudley. And it's not Draco. Harry has been the victim of abuse, real emotional and physical abuse a hundred times greater than having your tongue enlarged or a pig's tail added. Any kid who has been bullied DREAMS of someone like Hagrid or the twins pulling that kind of prank against the stepbrother who always gets his way or the rich kid who has everything he wants and rubs your nose in it. Just like any kid dreams of someday being told they are a wizard. So that's what I think JKR is trying to accomplish. Is it a darker edge? Sure, but if you don't believe that a victim of bullying doesn't wish he or she could magically disfigure their taunter, or someone would do it for them, then I think you don't remember childhood. Darrin -- I'd have done a lot worse than a pig's tail, believe me. From rvotaw at i-55.com Fri Aug 23 12:43:20 2002 From: rvotaw at i-55.com (rvotaw at i-55.com) Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 07:43:20 -0500 (CDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Subject: Re: "Delicate" Harry Message-ID: <874916.1030106600457.JavaMail.root@webmail.i-55.com> No: HPFGUIDX 43053 > Richelle Votaw: > "Madam Pomfrey: "Yes, he's all clammy. Terrible things, they are, and > the effect they have on people who are already delicate--" > Harry: "I'm not delicate!" > So my point being, what is meant by delicate?... > I suppose it could be taken to mean "emotionally delicate" which I > would agree to." Dembeldei responded: > I thought this was an example of more effects from Rita Skeeter's > influence on readers in GOF- Molly Weasley and Viktor Krum initially > believed the article that he had been dating Hermione; because of the > article suggesting he was disturbed/dangerous/deranged, students > started steering far of Harry and Fudge discounted his graveyard > account. So it seems Madame Pomfrey has also bought into > the 'emotionally unstable' story. Let me clarify one thing real quick before I get into trouble. :) I didn't intend to mean "emotionally unstable" as Rita Skeeter did. By emotionally delicate I meant, well, extra sensitive emotionally. As in things get to Harry a bit more than some people. But I think emotionally he handles it better than could be expected. Emotionally he is insecure, but not unstable. Richelle ---------- Richelle Votaw: "Madam Pomfrey: "Yes, he's all clammy. Terrible things, they are, and the effect they have on people who are already delicate--" Harry: "I'm not delicate!" So my point being, what is meant by delicate?... I suppose it could be taken to mean "emotionally delicate" which I would agree to." I thought this was an example of more effects from Rita Skeeter's influence on readers in GOF- Molly Weasley and Viktor Krum initially believed the article that he had been dating Hermione; because of the article suggesting he was disturbed/dangerous/deranged, students started steering far of Harry and Fudge discounted his graveyard account. So it seems Madame Pomfrey has also bought into the 'emotionally unstable' story. Dembeldei ________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/ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From crana at ntlworld.com Fri Aug 23 13:18:14 2002 From: crana at ntlworld.com (rosie) Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 14:18:14 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Subject: Re: "Delicate" Harry References: <874916.1030106600457.JavaMail.root@webmail.i-55.com> Message-ID: <003601c24aa7$8a087880$81b068d5@xxx> No: HPFGUIDX 43054 Oh I'm sorry! I sent the other message to you instead of Dembeldei... im sorry... i really am! please delete ! rosie sorry! ----- Original Message ----- From: rvotaw at i-55.com To: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, August 23, 2002 1:43 PM Subject: re: [HPforGrownups] Subject: Re: "Delicate" Harry > Richelle Votaw: > "Madam Pomfrey: "Yes, he's all clammy. Terrible things, they are, and > the effect they have on people who are already delicate--" > Harry: "I'm not delicate!" > So my point being, what is meant by delicate?... > I suppose it could be taken to mean "emotionally delicate" which I > would agree to." Dembeldei responded: > I thought this was an example of more effects from Rita Skeeter's > influence on readers in GOF- Molly Weasley and Viktor Krum initially > believed the article that he had been dating Hermione; because of the > article suggesting he was disturbed/dangerous/deranged, students > started steering far of Harry and Fudge discounted his graveyard > account. So it seems Madame Pomfrey has also bought into > the 'emotionally unstable' story. Let me clarify one thing real quick before I get into trouble. :) I didn't intend to mean "emotionally unstable" as Rita Skeeter did. By emotionally delicate I meant, well, extra sensitive emotionally. As in things get to Harry a bit more than some people. But I think emotionally he handles it better than could be expected. Emotionally he is insecure, but not unstable. Richelle ---------- Richelle Votaw: "Madam Pomfrey: "Yes, he's all clammy. Terrible things, they are, and the effect they have on people who are already delicate--" Harry: "I'm not delicate!" So my point being, what is meant by delicate?... I suppose it could be taken to mean "emotionally delicate" which I would agree to." I thought this was an example of more effects from Rita Skeeter's influence on readers in GOF- Molly Weasley and Viktor Krum initially believed the article that he had been dating Hermione; because of the article suggesting he was disturbed/dangerous/deranged, students started steering far of Harry and Fudge discounted his graveyard account. So it seems Madame Pomfrey has also bought into the 'emotionally unstable' story. Dembeldei ________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/ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] ________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 crana at ntlworld.com Fri Aug 23 13:22:09 2002 From: crana at ntlworld.com (rosie) Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 14:22:09 +0100 Subject: Eek, I'm sorry Message-ID: <004801c24aa8$16379de0$81b068d5@xxx> No: HPFGUIDX 43055 I'm sorry everyone... first I tried to email Dembeldei offlist... then I accidentally sent that to Richelle... then I sent my apologies to Richelle to the whole list! I think I'll sit back and lurk for a bit, I'm very sorry! Rosie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From meboriqua at aol.com Fri Aug 23 13:40:55 2002 From: meboriqua at aol.com (jenny_ravenclaw) Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 13:40:55 -0000 Subject: Fred and George: The Bullies You Do Know In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43056 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "abigailnus" wrote: > You know, I've had the feeling for a long time that, as a group, we tend to over-analize the Harry Potter books - at least past a certain point.> That is exactly why people join and then stick around this list. We love to analyze HP because we've noticed that JKR has written multiply layered characters and events. I'll be analyzing every word of HP for a long time. > I honestly believe that in most of these cases, JKR's reasoning doesn't go any further than "this is funny." This is something of a disservice to the characters, making them the purveyors of cheap laughs and nothing more, but let's face it, Fred and George aren't that important.> Are you so sure? Did you think Scabbers was important in SS, CoS and most of PoA? Am I the only person who is flashing on an early episode of Buffy > the Vampire Slayer, in which Xander is possessed by a hyena spirit and begins acting quite cruelly?> I remember this episode very well and the key word you used in relation to Xander is "possessed". The other kids were mean already, and as far as I know, no one has put a spell on Fred and George that compels them to pull pranks on everyone around them all the time. > Legal adults or not, the twins are sixteen year old boys. They are, by definition, idiots. I've known my share of these guys. I've been teased by my share of them, and I really, really hated them at the time (which was 5-7 years ago.) Today I should imagine that most of them have grown up and gotten over it, but more importantly, I have.> First, I must say that the arguments consisting of things like "boys will be boys" and "he's just being a 16 year old" push my buttons. It excuses the behaviors of people as involuntary because of their sex or age. Of course, 16 year olds are not adults yet and do not have to deal with responsibilities the way adults do. I remember doing some irresponsible things when I was a teen and my students practically compete with each other to see who can be the most outrageously behaved. However, not all of them behave badly. It is a choice. I also have to add that you shouldn't be so sure that everyone gets over being bullied as well as you have. I was the target of bullies when I was much younger and I remember it to this day with a sour taste in my mouth. Many people who were bullied as kids need therapy as adults. Ron seems more and more to have quite a bit of trouble letting go of Draco's nasty comments about the Weasleys' poverty and I've mentioned before that I'm curious to see how he will continue to handle this. As a teacher, I have zero tolerance for bullying in my classroom and if I see it happening, I lose my temper fast, which is something I don't do in the classroom very often. > Not only do I find it hard to classify hexing Draco and his buddies as bullying (which is, after all, mostly about fear and humiliation. Having been knocked out immediately, Draco and his cronies had no time to feel either.)> Please tell me you are joking here. Are you seriously saying that because Draco and Co are *knocked out* they won't feel humiliated when they come to? If I was a teacher on that train who witnessed the entire incident, I would have made sure that everyone involved was punished: Draco and Co for starting, Harry, Ron, Hermione, Fred and George for hexing and Fred and George for then walking over the bodies. No one was right here. > Oh, come on, give the kids a break. Look at Cedric - he's older than the twins, he's handsome, smart, popular, good with the girls, a great Quidditch player, and on top of all that he's nice, modest and friendly. How could they not hate him? Can you honestly tell me that you've never met a person like that and just hated them?> Yes, I can. How can I hate someone who is always nice? I envied the girls in my school who were pretty and who were on receiving end of the boys's crushes, but I didn't dislike them. I disliked my peers who were mean, or petty, or dishonest. I don't dislike the twins as much as Elkins does (I'm not betraying you, Elkins!), but they have done things that we wouldn't excuse from someone else. Darrin and many others simply abhor Draco and love to see him get a comeuppance at any opportunity. Draco says hateful, racist things and plans pranks that backfire. Fred and George don't seems to harbor any prejudices (except against Cedric, I suppose), so their motives aren't as clear. They are in Gryffindor, they are excellent athletes, they are confident and they are nice to Harry. Is that why so many people think they are funny and why people are so quick to excuse them? --jenny from ravenclaw, who would also probably dislike Fred and George in real life but who would be very sad if either of them died in the series ***** From bard7696 at aol.com Fri Aug 23 14:20:13 2002 From: bard7696 at aol.com (darrin_burnett) Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 14:20:13 -0000 Subject: Fred and George: The Bullies You Do Know In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43057 My old friend Jenny: > I don't dislike the twins as much as Elkins does (I'm not betraying > you, Elkins!), but they have done things that we wouldn't excuse from someone else. Darrin and many others simply abhor Draco and love to see him get a comeuppance at any opportunity. Draco says hateful, racist things and plans pranks that backfire. Fred and George don't seems to harbor any prejudices (except against Cedric, I suppose), so their motives aren't as clear. They are in Gryffindor, they are excellent athletes, they are confident and they are nice to Harry. Is that why so many people think they are funny and why people are so quick to excuse them? > > --jenny from ravenclaw, who would also probably dislike Fred and > George in real life but who would be very sad if either of them died > in the series > ***** First, how can you be prejudiced against a single person? Their chilliness, and that's what it is, nothing more, toward Cedric in GoF is sour grapes. Is it perfect behavior? No, but it certainly doesn't make them bullies. Again, canon tells us they just don't talk much to Cedric. They don't even bring the game up. Amos Diggory handles that. For crying out loud, it's not an Azkaban-offense. And let us turn the tables -- again -- and see how the sour grapes toward Harry plays out when Harry is entered in the Tournament. Egged on by Draco, the entire school (save Hermione and many Gryffs) turns on Harry for a brief period of time. To compare Fred and George being cold to Cedric in a small group to Draco's actions is unconscionable. Tell me, what would you do if you found a "so-and-so" stinks sign in your room? I would hope you'd confiscate it. But would you apply the same logic and severity to what amounts to a playground argument that doesn't even really amount to much, over whose team should have won? I would hope not. And again, we have plenty of cues how important Quidditch is to some people. Cedric's father, the adult of the group, is obnoxious over what is at best, a tainted victory. I don't live in Europe, so I don't get the soccer shenanigans, but I can tell you that if you want to make a Bostonian cry, just mention Bill Buckner in 1986. 16 years ago, and it still has an effect. Now, why are F&G are liked. 1) They laugh at themselves just as easily, as evidenced by their reactions when they failed to cross the age line. Subtler touches are their reactions to the sweaters, or losing points. They are confident, which means they understand when a joke is a joke, played on them or played by them. 2) When it comes time to be serious, they get serious. George yells at Oliver Wood when he thinks Wood is being too cavalier with Harry's safety in the Rogue Bludger game. And one of the most touching little subtle moments in the books is George's sudden bout of seriousness when he sees the booklist in CoS and realizes his parents are going to have to give something else up to pay for them. Now tell me that when Draco makes fun of the Weasley's wealth, it is somehow on par with Fred and George's pranks. Anyone that says so is again, being unconscionable. 3) Draco is racist. I cannot put in any plainer than that. To apologize for Draco is to apologize for a stone-cold racist. Therefore, to credibly compare anyone to Draco is to necessarily prove that person or persons is also racist. Fred and George are not. They do not tinge their humor at anyone group in particular. 4) Fred and George have never behaved with any kind of superiority complex, as Draco does. If anything, they are compensating for inferiority complexes, considering they have Percy, Bill and Charlie to live up to. Their grades aren't as good as Percy and Bill, and they are talented at Quidditch, but not the natural Charlie was. It's a way to get noticed, but as I said, when it comes time to get serious, they get serious. The pranks on Percy and Ginny have been taken to task as picking on weaker kids. Hold on, the twins put beetles in Bill's soup and constantly tweak their mother, so older sibling and authority figures are fair game as well. Thus endeth THAT argument. People have taken the opportunity to lambast the boys for throwing snowballs at Quirrell. I think they miss the point. Draco picks on teachers as well, Hagrid and Lupin being the most common examples, but he does it out of anger and superiority. My image of Fred and George is that nothing would have given them greater pleasure than if Quirrell had fired a snowball right back at them, maybe even with a little harmless magic oomph. When Draco gets his comeuppance from a teacher, his first instinct is to run to Daddy. A bully is a coward deep down. F&G aren't cowards. Darrin - Of course, probably not so harmless, given Quirrellmort. ;) From pennylin at swbell.net Fri Aug 23 14:45:31 2002 From: pennylin at swbell.net (Penny Linsenmayer) Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 09:45:31 -0500 Subject: Fred and George: The Bullies You Do Know References: Message-ID: <01bc01c24ab3$bac3c9f0$4f5ffea9@cq5hs01> No: HPFGUIDX 43058 Hi -- I so completely agree with Elkins & Debbie -- I don't particularly like the Twins either and never have. Glad to know I'm not in the complete minority on that one. :--) I don't have time for a full-blown response on this topic, but I did want to make a few quick points for now & will join in again more later: Darrin said: <<<<<<3) Draco is racist. I cannot put in any plainer than that. To apologize for Draco is to apologize for a stone-cold racist. Therefore, to credibly compare anyone to Draco is to necessarily prove that person or persons is also racist. Fred and George are not. They do not tinge their humor at anyone group in particular.>>>>>>> Er. .... first off, could we have an "IMO" or a qualifier of some sort, Darrin? There *are* listies who might disagree with your assertion that Draco is a racist & nothing more. In any case, it makes no sense logically to say that comparing anyone, on any level, to Draco means that you are saying that the other person being compared is also a racist. That makes no sense to me. Logically, this just doesn't work. Darrin again: <<<<<<>>>>>>>>>> Just because they don't confine their pranks to younger, weaker victims doesn't make the pranks being pulled on the younger, weaker victims any less detestable or worthy of condemnation. Again, it's an issue of logic. Noone was saying that they *only* pick on younger & weaker kids; Elkins, IIRC, was merely stating that their pranks on younger kids were particularly distasteful to her. I agree. Penny (who has alot more to say but is out of time....) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From CoolPetey7 at aol.com Fri Aug 23 13:43:12 2002 From: CoolPetey7 at aol.com (petenkalpaka) Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 13:43:12 -0000 Subject: Crabbe and Goyles Name Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43059 JK Rowling has many secrets to make the names of characters and things in the book. Onne way is switching the first letters of two words. Such a Frizzing WHisbies becomes Whizzing Frisbies. Crabbe and Goyle, if you switch the C and G, you get Grabbe and Coyle. Thats what a snake does to eaet its food. It "Grabbes" it and then "Coyles" around it. -Peter From mi_shell16 at hotmail.com Fri Aug 23 10:24:43 2002 From: mi_shell16 at hotmail.com (theresnothingtoit) Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 10:24:43 -0000 Subject: Practicality of LOLLIPOPS Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43060 Now don't get me wrong, I love the theory of LOLLIPOPS. Far be it from me to even look at the mighty LOLLIPOPS the wrong way. I marvel at the amount of can(n)on it has produce from almost nothing and its possibility for incredibly bangy action. But, and this is quite a big but, in a series written almost entirely from the point of view of Harry how will a Snape/Lily romance be written, even if it is one of unrequited love? Snape, although a highly emotional man capably of strong feelings does strike me as a very personal man and is unlikely to open his heart and let it spill out in a bloody mess in front of Harry. So I came up with some ideas because I would love to see Snape have an actual relationship with Lily rather than an "all in his head" love affair. 1. "Lily's Diary" or "Snape's Pensieve" chapter Yes, I know - been there, done that, banged already. It is highly possible that Lily kept a diary, it doesn't have to be magical, of her time at Hogwarts and extremely probable that Snape has a pensieve. But that's already been done. (On a side note - I think we will see "the prank" played out in a pensieve to give the reader an objective view, but that's a whole other post.) 2. Blast from the Past One of Lily's friends turns up, as we haven't met any yet, and says "what, you didn't know? It was so obvious", perhaps the mysterious Florence. This works even if they had a brief (and secretive) relationship or it was all in Snapes head. I like this as it has plenty of scope for humour as Snape desperately tries to shut her up without coming out and saying "don't say I fancied Lily, they don't know!" 3. Taken by force That is to say Snape reveals all under the Imperius or after having Veritaserum rammed down his throat. This of course could be used after any of the theories to extract the whole truth. 4. The Freudian Slip Now this is by far my favourite. Snape, in one of his apoplectic fits of rage yells out something he shouldn't, something he has kept buried for over twenty years. Sort of like Hamlet at Ophilia's grave. Or perhaps his patronus is the lily flower. So what do you think? Of course it wont mean much if Snape never love Lily but there is defiantly more going on between Snape and James than we have been told. Awaiting your comments, criticisms, ideas and rotten fruit. Theresnothingtoit (Who wants Hermione to get very jealous when Ron asks Eloise Midgen to the next ball) ~~~*~~~ From pengolodh_sc at yahoo.no Fri Aug 23 14:58:59 2002 From: pengolodh_sc at yahoo.no (pengolodh_sc) Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 14:58:59 -0000 Subject: Catcalls (was: Fred and George: The Bullies You Do Know) In-Reply-To: <00bc01c24a08$2de6f620$3a3b3244@arlngt01.va.comcast.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43061 --- In HPforGrownups, elfundeb wrote: [snip] > Others have pointed out incidents such as the hissing of > Malcolm Baddock when he was sorted into Slytherin. I'll add, > from PS/SS, that they made catcalls when Lavender Brown was > sorted into Gryffindor. I checked my dictionary, which > confirmed my understanding that a catcall is what the > stereotypical construction worker does when an attractive > young woman walks by (I do not want to offend any real > construction workers here.) I consider it rude in the > extreme, and it's no way to greet the first new Gryffindor of > the year, especially an 11-year-old girl. Like the Malcolm > Baddock greeting, this one struck a very sour chord with me. > I cannot see any reason to include this -- because it's not > funny to me -- except as a very early signal that the Twins > do push the envelope too far sometimes. [snip] Catcalls are also the type of whistling and hooting the audience does after an excellent theatre- or music-performance, when the cast-and- crew, or the conductor, come onstage to receive their just reward, often done in the hopes of a da-capo of the high-point of the performance. For examples, see the traditional New Year's Concert in Vienna, Last Night of the Proms in London, or if you've seen it, the Royal Albert Hall Anniversary Performance of Les Miserables. Another example is from the musical Cats, where it says in the song of Gus, the Theatre Cat: "For he once was a star of the highest degree - He has acted with Irving, he's acted with Tree. And he likes to relate his success on the halls, Where the gallery once gave him seven cat-calls." Best regards Christian Stub? From nplyon at yahoo.com Fri Aug 23 15:00:59 2002 From: nplyon at yahoo.com (Nicole L.) Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 08:00:59 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Fred and George: The Bullies You Do Know In-Reply-To: <1030085505.3551.16035.m10@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <20020823150059.5488.qmail@web20908.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 43062 Abigail said [with some liberal snips on my part]: > I honestly believe that in most of these cases, > JKR's reasoning doesn't go > any further than "this is funny." This is something > of a disservice to the > characters, making them the purveyors of cheap > laughs and nothing more, > but let's face it, Fred and George aren't that > important. They have no > apparent role in the grand scheme of things. Harry > even tells them that in > the coming war, their job is going to be making > people laugh and forget > about their troubles - a possible meta statement > from JKR? The argument > here seems to be with JKR's sense of humor, not her > characterization. I have to agree with this characterization of Fred and George. I admit that I am very fond of them but I do not think them all that important to the story either. They are they just to make things funny and to lighten the tone when necessary. Besides that, JKR often has a playful tone to her writing and I think that this is reflected in Fred and George. In the context of childhood, I can see how these two are hilarious. As a bunch of adults looking at them, we may see their behavior as immature and mean but I don't think children read them the same way. Let's face it, how many of us have never regretted something we did when we were young? My best friend and I are fond of looking back on our first year of college and talking about what morons we were. I mean no disrespect to any of the younger members of the group, it is simply that, as we age, we tend to look at our past actions in a different light. Time and experience color of perception of things. I think this is the case with Fred and George. As my dad says, "Hindsight is 20/20." > > So I find any attempt to read too much depth into > the twins a bit futile > (with one possible exception to be mentioned later.) > However, even if > I were to try and take the twins' actions seriously, > and judge them as I > would judge people acting in the real world, then I > think the label "bullies" > is a bit extreme. My sentiments exactly. I think it is important to remember that these are children's novels telling the story from the point of view of a child. Naturally as adults we will make our own interpretations and draw our own conclusions but perhaps we are missing something when we do this. Children just don't think as deeply as adults. During my brief teaching stint, I was astonished at just how egocentric and short-sighted some teenagers could be (I taught high school). I think Fred and George are the perfect example of this. > Fred and George are teasers and practiacly jokers. > Their actions are similar > to those of bullies, but their intentions aren't. > At their best, Fred and > George are being playful and high-spirited, and are > unaware of the fact > that they might be causing pain to others. At their > worse, they are almost > unbearably callous. Neither of these traits make > them bullies, or even bad > people. I agree with this assessment as well. I think Fred and George are pretty thoughtless and that is why some of their pranks appear to be malicious in nature. I'm not saying that the, "But I didn't mean it that way" defense is an excuse for mean behavior but I think it's an explanation. My husband is the sort who loves to tease people and sometimes he carries it too far. Whenever I have to talk to him about this, he is genuinely bewildered that someone could have been offended by his jests. IMHO, Fred and George are the exact same way. > Not only do I find it hard to classify hexing Draco > and his buddies as bullying > (which is, after all, mostly about fear and > humiliation. Having been knocked > out immediately, Draco and his cronies had no time > to feel either.) Not only do > I think that it is unfair to lay the blame for the > hexing solely at the twins feet - > there were five people who performed the hexes, the > twins are less then half > of them. I also find it very hard to condemn Fred > and George (and Harry and > Ron and Hermione) for reacting the way they did. > Was it wrong to hex Malfoy > and his buddies? Yes. Was it wrong to step over > them and leave them in the hall? > Yes. Was the behaviour of all *five* responsible > parties all but inexcusable? Hell > yes. But is it impossible to understand? Well... I'm sorry, but I feel no sympathy for Malfoy at all. He is the classic example of someone who can dish it but can't take it. I don't see violence of any type as the answer to anything but I do understand what it's like to be motivated to do something out of rage. What Malfoy said was completely nasty and, IMO, unforgiveable. I don't necessarily think that Malfoy is evil but I do believe that he is malevolent in the sense that he is viciously, inexcuseably spiteful to others for no good reason whatsoever. He is a blatant racist and a nasty coward who has to bring his two bodyguards around with him because he is not courageous enough to spew his vile nonsense and then defend himself. So, I can hardly cry for someone like that when he gets his comeuppance. > > In one sentence, Draco Malfoy manages to pick open a > wound that is still > very fresh, to threaten Harry, the twins' friend, > and insult Ron, their brother. > And the twins don't even like Draco, what with him > being the son of the man > who nearly cause their sister's death and having > been taught from a young > age that his entire family are up to no good (and it > was you, Elkins, who > suggested that this indocrination might have much > deeper roots than just > Arthur Weasly talking shop at home.) Is it any > wonder the twins have a severe > reaction? That doesn't mean I find this reaction > correct, but I am saying that for > 16 year-olds, it makes sense. Again, I agree. When I was about 19 or so, I had a nasty breakup with a boyfriend who said some very nasty things about me. My 16-year-old brother's first reaction was to gather up all his friends from his high school football team and go beat the guy up. Now, my brother is *not* a violent person by *any* means. He is one of the nicest, most sensitive, most caring people I know. His reaction was provoked by irrational anger and I know he suggested it in a flash of rage. And, anyway, I think that it's common for boys and even men to react this way when they want to protect their family. Call it a primal urge, sort of like a mother imperilling her own life to save that of her child. I did not like the idea of my brother doing physical harm to another person but I did find it extremely admirable that he was being so protective of me. I feel the same way about Fred and George in this scene and I, too, suspect that there is something between Lucius and Arthur that we don't know about, which would add further fuel to the twins' fire. > > And as for sneering at Malfoy in PoA, that is taken > completely out of > context. The twins were trying to make Harry feel > better by letting him > know that Malfoy, who had teased him for fainting > when meeting the > dementors, wasn't exactly Captain Courageous on the > train - which I > think is pretty sneer worthy. They also qualify > this statement by > immdiately saying that they were quite frightened > themselves - how > many bullies would admit such a thing? I think > Malfoy was displaying > bully-like behaviour in this case, not the twins. IMO, Malfoy is a bully of the worst sort. While I think Fred and George do things out of an overly playful sense of good humor, Draco is motivated to action by his own prejudices. I know that he doesn't exactly have a stellar example to look up to. After all, his father plants a very dangerous dark artifact among the school things of a child (and even if he didn't mean to target Ginny, it's just as bad that he wanted to target Harry). However, this does not excuse Draco's behavior, in my eyes. That boy has a severly underdeveloped sense of what's right and what's wrong. > I also found the ton-tongue toffee scene unpleasant, > and once again I > point to the double whammy of JKR's crude sense of > humor and the twins' > general immaturity. This was a nasty passage. I don't think they would have targeted Dudley had Harry not told them how mean Dudley was to him but it's no excuse for what they did. I chalk this up to one of those occassions where the person that you like does something that you really hate. We're all given to this sort of behavior from time to time. > Oh, come on, give the kids a break. Look at Cedric > - he's older than the twins, > he's handsome, smart, popular, good with the girls, > a great Quidditch player, > and on top of all that he's nice, modest and > friendly. How could they not > hate him? Can you honestly tell me that you've > never met a person like that > and just hated them? In my mind, there's no doubt that the twins are wickedly jealous of Cedric and I agree with Abigail's assessment. It's not pretty, but human beings do have a tendency toward dislike of a person who is a perfectly wonderful human being simply because they are jealous of that person. > I have never seen the twins' behavious towards Percy > as bullying or in any > way unbearable, and I certainly don't think he's in > at all vulnerable. They're > brothers, brothers pick on each other. Just because > Percy is too full of himself > to play the game doesn't mean Fred and George can't, > and what do they do > to him that's so terrible, anyway? They make fun of > him for being proud of > being a prefect. They tease him for his > self-importance. They play with his > head boy badge. We never see this have any adverse > affect on him - I think it > would take quite a bit more to deflate someone as > stuck up as Percy, and > I think the twins know that too. I admit to being baffled when people point out the twins' constant teasing of Percy. Who doesn't tease their siblings in this manner? I have tons of cousins and they all treated their siblings this way. In fact, one of my female cousins still calls her sister, "Trash," even though the love each other a lot and spend tons of time together. I also personally relate to the twins' treatment of Percy. My brother is one of my best friends but when we were young, we were *constantly* bickering and insulting one another. We also had physical fights, which is something I've never seen occur between the twins and Percy. I really think that this is perfectly normal sibling rivalry. > I think this was meant to be a red herring. We were > supposed to notice > that Ginny was in a bad way, but to attribute it to > the twins' pranks and > not to Riddle's effect on her. In reality, I > suspect that nothing that the > twins did to Ginny could be worse than what was > already going on in her > own head. Again, I agree. I think that if Ginny had not been going through what she was going through with the whole Riddle affair, their teasing would not have affected her at all. She grew up with them and was more than likely used to it. Besides, I'm sure that Ginny isn't a perfect little angel either. I'm perfectly willing to bet that she has done/said her own share of cruel things to her brothers, and I'm not just referring to the twins. Girls can be tough. I know from personal experience. :) ~Nicole, who would like to add that she has a great deal of respect for Elkins' very well-informed and educated opinions and is sorry to see that she is at odds with Elkins on this issue. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes http://finance.yahoo.com From bdmorrp at budget.state.ny.us Fri Aug 23 15:04:09 2002 From: bdmorrp at budget.state.ny.us (erisedstraeh2002) Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 15:04:09 -0000 Subject: Harry is More Powerful When Wandless - A Fatal Flaw Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43063 We've been having a discussion about the premise that Voldemort gave Harry his wand in the graveyard because Voldemort knew Harry was more powerful without a wand. I think I've found a fatal flaw in this premise, which is that Harry was wandless when he was tied to the gravestone and he didn't do any magic at all, powerful or not, while he was tied up. The instances we've seen of Harry doing wandless magic - the Aunt Marge inflation incident and the vanishing glass at the zoo, for example - haven't involved him using his arms to make the magic happen, so this suggests to me that he only needs his brain (and perhaps those gorgeous green Lily eyes??) to make the wandless magic happen. So, this suggests to me that Harry could have performed wandless magic while he was tied up. So I think if Voldemort truly thought that Harry was more powerful without a wand, he would have killed him immediately upon his arrival in the graveyard (probably by slitting his throat so he could get Harry's blood for the regeneration potion by force - oh, perish the thought!). ~Phyllis From abigailnus at yahoo.com Fri Aug 23 15:33:52 2002 From: abigailnus at yahoo.com (abigailnus) Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 15:33:52 -0000 Subject: Fred and George: The Bullies You Do Know In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43064 Jenny from Ravenclaw wrote, in response to my statement which I knew was going to get me into hot water: > > You know, I've had the feeling for a long time that, as a group, we > tend to over-analize the Harry Potter books - at least past a certain > point.> > > That is exactly why people join and then stick around this list. We > love to analyze HP because we've noticed that JKR has written multiply > layered characters and events. I'll be analyzing every word of HP for > a long time. Of course we do, that's why I said "past a certain point." My point here is that there are some cases where we think things to a far greater degree than JKR does. I'm not saying that this is true in all cases (and indeed I didn't say so in my original message) but I am all but certain that it is the case when it comes to the more humorous passages in the books. Do I have proof of this? No, and there's no way I could without having a conversation with Rowling herself, and given how taciturn she tends to be during interviews I suspect that even that wouldn't do me much good. This is my opinion, a vibe that I sometimes get. Think about it this way - for every thorny issue and murky passage in the books there are several competing theories suggested by different group members. Obviously for every situation, only one theory can be true - or maybe none of them, and the only person who knows for certain is JKR. But unlike her readers, who take the available canon and try to guess the rest of the story, JKR first came up with the story and then wrote the canon. Doesn't this suggest that at least in some cases, group members have given more thought to the plotlines and characters than JKR has? I'm not suggesting that JKR is oblivious to her work, or that any of the themes that we perceive were not conciously introduced by her. I'm certainly not suggesting that JKR doesn't know her characters (although Elkins has on more than one occasion suggested that this is the case - subversive Neville, anyone?) What I am saying is that our perspective of her work gives us different insights into it, and as a result we sometimes tend to overanalize it. You are of course correct when you say that the HP books have many levels - and it is precisely because of this that we stand in danger of reading too much into them. Of course this is a slippery slope - instead of analizing characters we could just say "because it's funny" or "because Rowling needed it that way" and never gain any new insights into the books, and then what would be the point of this group? That's why I only feel comfortable applying these explanations to the humorous passages in the books - Rowling's humor is so broad that I feel all but certain that there is very little, if any, subtext in it. But even if we are meant to take Fred and George seriously, I object to categorising them as bullies, as I said in my original message and as I explain below. > > > I honestly believe that in most of these cases, JKR's reasoning > doesn't go any further than "this is funny." This is something of a > disservice to the characters, making them the purveyors of cheap > laughs and nothing more, but let's face it, Fred and George aren't > that important.> > > Are you so sure? Did you think Scabbers was important in SS, CoS and > most of PoA? No, of course I'm not sure. This is a theory just like any other, although I do find Harry's asking them to be the official moralle squad of Voldemort War II rather telling. About Fred and George's bullying (or lack thereof): > First, I must say that the arguments consisting of things like "boys > will be boys" and "he's just being a 16 year old" push my buttons. It > excuses the behaviors of people as involuntary because of their sex or > age. No it doesn't. What it does is say that a person, especially a male, who is young, tends not to understand that his actions have consequences and that he might hurt people, physically or emotionally. This is not an excuse, it is a fact. The line "boys will be boys" is most often used to explain why rambunctious boys shouldn't be punished for their transgression, and I never said that I felt the twins didn't deserve to be punished or that their actions were correct. What I was trying to argue was that being idiotic 16 year-olds does not automatically mean that the twins are sociopathic bullies, it just means that they're idiots. > > I also have to add that you shouldn't be so sure that everyone gets > over being bullied as well as you have. I was the target of bullies > when I was much younger and I remember it to this day with a sour > taste in my mouth. Many people who were bullied as kids need therapy > as adults. Ron seems more and more to have quite a bit of trouble > letting go of Draco's nasty comments about the Weasleys' poverty and > I've mentioned before that I'm curious to see how he will continue to > handle this. And once again, I did not say that I was bullied, I said that I was teased. There is a monumental difference. The people who teased me were getting a cheap laugh out of whatever inadequecies (social, physical, mental) they perceived in me. They were amusing themselves at my expense. This is not a nice thing to do and it can be quite hurtfull, but the goal of the teasing was the teasers' amusement. A bully's goal is the power rush that comes from his victim's humiliation, and this can have a lasting effect. You yourself support this when you point out that Ron suffers from the lingering effects of Draco's nastiness - because Draco is a bully. We have yet to see one person teased by the twins who seems worse off for it - they may not have enjoyed it, but none of them suffered emotional scars. > > Not only do I find it hard to classify hexing Draco and his buddies > as bullying (which is, after all, mostly about fear and humiliation. > Having been knocked out immediately, Draco and his cronies had no time > to feel either.)> > > Please tell me you are joking here. Are you seriously saying that > because Draco and Co are *knocked out* they won't feel humiliated when > they come to? Of course they feel humiliated later, but Fred and George aren't there to see it. The twins' purpose in attacking Draco was not to bully him but to get back at him for hurting them - not a mature or reasonable response, but then I never claimed that it was. What I did say was that it didn't fit the bullying approach - the twins didn't care about Draco's humiliation, it wasn't their purpose. > > Oh, come on, give the kids a break. Look at Cedric - he's older > than the twins, he's handsome, smart, popular, good with the girls, a > great Quidditch player, and on top of all that he's nice, modest and > friendly. How could they not hate him? Can you honestly tell me that > you've never met a person like that and just hated them?> > > Yes, I can. How can I hate someone who is always nice? I envied the > girls in my school who were pretty and who were on receiving end of > the boys's crushes, but I didn't dislike them. I disliked my peers > who were mean, or petty, or dishonest. Alright, so maybe hate is a strong word (but then I think that Elkins' original description of the twins' reaction to Cedric is a bit too strongly worded.) But surely you conceed that envy can lead to dislike, and that the twins, especially at their awkward age, might be predisposed to dislike someone who was so much better than they were at everything. It's only human. As a teacher I can understand how you would take even a hint of bullying very seriously - and good for you - but I really don't feel that Fred and George fit the bullying mold. They are not cruel, they are thoughtless, and while this is not a good thing, it isn't anti-social either, especially not at 16. Abigail From CoolPetey7 at aol.com Fri Aug 23 15:08:44 2002 From: CoolPetey7 at aol.com (petenkalpaka) Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 15:08:44 -0000 Subject: Colors with Voldemort and Harry Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43065 There are many connections with color to the Harry Potter Books. Red and Green are very important. Voldemort's eyes are red and Harry's are green. Many of Harry's spells are red. Voldemort's are green. Red and green are complimentary colors (I think that's that name.) That means they go together, but they're total opposites. Kind of like Harry and Voldemort! -Peter From bdmorrp at budget.state.ny.us Fri Aug 23 16:06:35 2002 From: bdmorrp at budget.state.ny.us (erisedstraeh2002) Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 16:06:35 -0000 Subject: Fawkes and the Sea In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43066 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "bugaloo37" wrote: > IMO, there has to be a connection between Voldemort's desire for > Harry's death and Voldemort's demise. Fear of destruction or the > quest for some secret power hidden within Harry (the secret of > immortality perhaps-i.e...all the references to the phoenix?, his > mother's green eyes?, being the heir of Gryffindor?) seems to be > the driving force behind Voldemort's actions in regards to Harry. > Harry is the key-why?- we can only guess!!! Now me: Hmmm...I've been thinking a lot about the phoenix, since this bird is in the title of the next book and Fawkes has played a big role so far. There was some recent discussion about Fawkes being Dumbledore's animagus, but I think Fawkes was Godric Gryffindor's phoenix when Gryffindor was alive. I offer the following support for this theory: (1) We know from FB and WTFT that phoenixes live for a long time since they can resurrect themselves from the ashes of their elderly selves. So it's conceivable that Fawkes could have been around for 1,000 years. After all, Slytherin's basilisk hung around that long. I think Fawkes represents good while Slytherin's basilisk represents evil - Fawkes appears when Harry is fighting the basilisk, and punches the basilisk's eyes out so it can no longer kill or petrify with its glare. The phoenix song strengthens Harry when he's fighting Diary!Riddle in the chamber and Recorporated!Voldemort in the graveyard. Also, as the Lexicon tells us, in legend, the griffin was believed to be the "adversary of serpent and basilisks, both of which were seen as embodiments of satanic demons." Perhaps a clue to a possible good-against-evil fight between Gryffindor and Slytherin 1,000 years ago (there just *has* to be more to this rivalry than their disagreement over whether to admit Muggle-borns to Hogwarts, IMO!). (2) Fawkes is scarlet and gold, the colors of Gryffindor House. (3) Fawkes lives in Dumbledore's office along with the sorting hat and sword that used to belong to Gryffindor. Also, in CoS, we're told that the door knocker on Dumbledore's office door was in the shape of a griffin. I believe Dumbledore's office was once Gryffindor's office. I *don't* think Dumbledore is a descendant of Gryffindor, however, because I believe Harry is a descendant of Gryffindor (as I elaborated in a previous post which explored parallels between St. Godric and Harry) and I don't think Dumbledore would have left him with those horrible Dursleys if Harry was a relative (plus Dumbledore says in SS/PS that the Dursleys are the only family Harry has left). Last night, I was reading David Colbert's book, The Magical Worlds of Harry Potter, and was struck by what he says about the Druidess Cliodna (one of the famous witches on the trading cards that come with the Chocolate Frogs in SS/PS). Colbert writes: "She is also goddess of the sea...She has three enchanted birds that heal the sick" (p. 185). An enchanted bird that heals the sick - sounds to me like this could be the healing tears of a phoenix! And the sea...St. Godric was a sailor/ship's captain. He was known to stop in mid-sentence to pray for ships in danger of shipwreck. There are also sea legends about St. Cuthbert, who was St. Godric's inspiration. Also, there's a shot in the beginning of the trailer for the second Movie-That-Must-Not-Be-Named that shows Harry sitting in front of the sea (with Hedwig fluttering down to sit next to him). I read somewhere that JKR gave the director of the first Movie- That-Must-Not-Be-Named an advance copy of GoF - I wonder if there are sea scenes in OoP that Mr. Columbus got an advance copy of? ~Phyllis From cindysphynx at comcast.net Fri Aug 23 16:18:16 2002 From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (cindysphynx) Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 16:18:16 -0000 Subject: Fred and George: The Bullies You Do Know In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43067 Darrin wrote: > First, how can you be prejudiced against a single person? Their > chilliness, and that's what it is, nothing more, toward Cedric in >GoF is sour grapes. Is it perfect behavior? No, but it certainly >doesn't make them bullies. Well, now. Are the twins bullies? I guess we have to define our terms a bit. I'll play it safe. To me, a bully is someone who engages in bullying behavior, including any form of victimizing weaker individuals. So are Fred and George bullies? Well, I think so. They play practical jokes on people, including weaker individuals like Neville. They stomp on unconscious individuals, IIRC. They hiss newcomers. They pick on a helpless muggle. So yeah. They engage in bullying behavior, therefore making them bullies. Amusing bullies at times, granted. But I don't think one can escape being labeled a bully by being charming and witty every now and then. Darrin: > To compare Fred and George being cold to Cedric in a small group >to Draco's actions is unconscionable. I beg your pardon? "Unconscionable" means "Not restrained by conscience; unscrupulous; beyond prudence or reason; excessive." Surely we can disagree about a few scenes in a book series without anyone calling anyone else's scruples into question. As for me, I can see how reasonable people might differ on this point. There is some similarity between Draco's actions and Fred and George's actions, I would say. The difference in perception is likely due to the fact that Harry considers himself an ally of Fred and George and a foe of Draco. Draco: > Now tell me that when Draco makes fun of the Weasleys' wealth, it >is somehow on par with Fred and George's pranks. Anyone that says >so is again, being unconscionable. Again, I am not sure I agree with you, and I hope this doesn't reflect poorly on my own conscience or morality. ;-) Anyway, I do see some parallels between Draco's conduct in belittling the Weasleys for their poverty and Fred and George's pranks. Take the Canary Cream business, where the twins deliberately steered a younger, less powerful student toward their joke. Take the Ton-Tongue Toffee, where the twins deliberately victimized Dudley for being hungry, overweight, and not magical. I certainly think reasonable minds can differ on this point as well, but I have to wonder whether the conduct of the twins is every bit as hurtful to those on the receiving end as Draco's taunts about the Weasleys' poverty. Darrin: > 3) Draco is racist. I cannot put in any plainer than that. To > apologize for Draco is to apologize for a stone-cold racist. > Therefore, to credibly compare anyone to Draco is to necessarily > prove that person or persons is also racist. Fred and George are >not. They do not tinge their humor at anyone group in particular. Hmmm. Draco is a racist, but he is many other things as well. For instance, he is an elitist. So it seems quite logical to reach the question of whether Draco's elitism is similar to the elitism Fred and George display in victimizing someone like Dudley. Whether Draco is a racist is the beginning of the analysis of his character and the extent to which he can be compared or contrasted with other characters, IMHO, not the end of the analysis. But again, we certainly should be able to disagree on this point and even be willing to hear the ideas of others without our tone becoming overly strident, I would hope. Darrin: > 4) Fred and George have never behaved with any kind of superiority > complex, as Draco does. If anything, they are compensating for > inferiority complexes, considering they have Percy, Bill and >Charlie to live up to. Thus endeth THAT argument. Well, let's not spike the ball quite so quickly, as I don't see the referee signaling a touchdown just yet. I mean, you know what happens to players who spike prematurely, don't you? They call it a *fumble.* ;-) See, I think the twins have a superiority complex when it comes to Muggle relations. Maybe there are good reasons for this, but I sense it nonetheless. So is there some reason why the twins superiority complex vis a vis muggles is different from some of the elitism Draco has displayed? Darrin: > My image of Fred and George is that nothing would have given them > greater pleasure than if Quirrell had fired a snowball right back >at them, maybe even with a little harmless magic oomph. > > When Draco gets his comeuppance from a teacher, his first instinct >is to run to Daddy. A bully is a coward deep down. > > F&G aren't cowards. Yes, but what have F&G ever had to run *from?* They get away with *everything.* Hey, who is to say that there isn't some bias in favor of Fred and George and against Draco? Fred and George sneak all over the school, and nothing happens. Draco is out of bounds in PS/SS, and he is immediately trekked off to the Forbidden Forest, where he meets up with the Dark Lord in Vapor Form. Maybe Draco has a *point* about disparate treatment after all. ;-) Cindy -- who is wondering how on earth she wound up *defending* Draco, and who is wondering whether her efforts to play Devil's Advocate have led to a a proliferation of snowballs in Hades right about now From bard7696 at aol.com Fri Aug 23 17:06:24 2002 From: bard7696 at aol.com (darrin_burnett) Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 17:06:24 -0000 Subject: Fred and George: The Bullies You Do Know In-Reply-To: <01bc01c24ab3$bac3c9f0$4f5ffea9@cq5hs01> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43068 Penny said: > > Darrin said: > > <<<<<<3) Draco is racist. I cannot put in any plainer than that. To > apologize for Draco is to apologize for a stone-cold racist. > Therefore, to credibly compare anyone to Draco is to necessarily > prove that person or persons is also racist. Fred and George are not. > They do not tinge their humor at anyone group in particular.>>>>>>> > > Er. .... first off, could we have an "IMO" or a qualifier of some sort, Darrin? There *are* listies who might disagree with your assertion that Draco is a racist & nothing more. No, because I don't think one is necessary. What I will do is clarify. Canon clearly shows Draco's racism, in the context of the Wizarding world. There is no evidence he feels blacks, for instance, are inferior. But, in the context of Wizard society, he is a open racist. He uses the word "mudblood" casually, calmly and with no remorse. Mudblood is, given the reactions of those around it, equivalent with the n- word in the real world. Draco openly calls for Mudbloods and Muggle-lovers to be killed, which if you substitute n-word and n-word-lover, is direct descendant of the racist beliefs of the KKK and the old Jim Crow laws. I never said he was nothing more than a racist. But he is a racist. I would be interested to hear from listies who dispute this. > In any case, it makes no sense logically to say that comparing anyone, on any level, to Draco means that you are saying that the other person being compared is also a racist. That makes no sense to me. Logically, this just doesn't work. > No, the question was about what motivates Draco's actions versus what motivates Fred and George's pranks. Draco's actions are motivated by his racism and his elitism -- he believes he is better than the Weasley's because he has more money -- while the Twins' actions are not. My logic is sound. To try and ascribe the same motivations behind the Twins' actions, you must first establish that they are doing it because they feel their targets are inferior. I say you can't do that. > Darrin again: > > <<<<<< weaker kids. Hold on, the twins put beetles in Bill's soup and > constantly tweak their mother, so older sibling and authority figures > are fair game as well. Thus endeth THAT argument.>>>>>>>>>>> > > Just because they don't confine their pranks to younger, weaker victims doesn't make the pranks being pulled on the younger, weaker victims any less detestable or worthy of condemnation. Again, it's an issue of logic. Noone was saying that they *only* pick on younger & weaker kids; Elkins, IIRC, was merely stating that their pranks on younger kids were particularly distasteful to her. I agree. > NOOOO... the argument was that they only pick on weaker kids. I threw Bill out there to establish that this isn't the case. Darrin -- Sometimes right and wrong is just that damn simple From miss_dumblydore at yahoo.com Fri Aug 23 17:13:49 2002 From: miss_dumblydore at yahoo.com (Heather Gauen) Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 10:13:49 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Fred and George: The Bullies You Do Know In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020823171349.61735.qmail@web20416.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 43069 ::Jumping into the fray:: =) Cindy wrote: > See, I think the twins have a superiority complex > when it comes to > Muggle relations. Maybe there are good reasons for > this, but I > sense it nonetheless. So is there some reason why > the twins > superiority complex vis a vis muggles is different > from some of the > elitism Draco has displayed? Me: I'm just wondering what kind of canon there is to back that up. Fred and George have never (to my recollection at least) said or done anything signifying that they feel superior to muggles. I would think that with Arthur Weasley as a father, this wouldn't even be allowed in their home. And, before everyone jumps in yelling about the Ton-Tongue Toffee incident, well, I think the twins themselves say it best- "'We didn't give it to him because he's a muggle!' said Fred indignantly. 'No, we gave it to him because he's a great bullying git,' said George." Most unfortunately, I don't have time right now to get into the entire point about whether or not it is okay to bully a bully (although I'll try to comment later because this subject interests me greatly), but the point is that the Dudley incident had *nothing* to do with the fact that he was a muggle, frightened, hungry, helpless, pick your argument. Plain and simple, it was because Dudley's a jerk. Heather, off to blow out her candles and have a bit of birthday cake :) __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes http://finance.yahoo.com From yrawen at ontheqt.org Fri Aug 23 17:35:24 2002 From: yrawen at ontheqt.org (yr awen) Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 13:35:24 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Fred and George: The Bullies You Do Know References: Message-ID: <005001c24acb$76fb6a80$badef718@kzo.chartermi.net> No: HPFGUIDX 43070 Good.... dang! Afternoon already?! (snipping large amounts of postage here) Cindy: Anyway, I do see some parallels between Draco's conduct in belittling the Weasleys for their poverty and Fred and George's pranks. Take the Canary Cream business, where the twins deliberately steered a younger, less powerful student toward their joke.<<<<<<<<< Yes, let's take the Canary Creams passage (GF21, US hardback), which has been oft cited but never quoted in the discussion: "Want a jam tart, Hermione?" said Fred. Hermione looked doubtfully at the plate he was offering her. Fred grinned. "It's all right," he said. "I haven't done anything to them. It's the custard creams you've got to watch -- " Neville, who had just bitten into a custard cream, choked and spat it out. Fred laughed. "Just my little joke, Neville..." At this point, there's absolutely *nothing* to suggest that the twins have "deliberately steered" Neville into their joke; the impression is that the custard creams could be picked up by anyone in the room and Neville was the one who happened on them. 'Younger and less powerful' doesn't enter into it the way the scene is set up -- there's no coercion, threat, or subtle entrapment hinted at. Neville simply eats the cream. To continue: Just then, Neville caused a slight diversion by turning into a large canary. "Oh -- sorry, Neville!" Fred shouted over all the laughter. "I forgot -- it *was* the custard creams we hexed -- " Within a minute, however, Neville had molted, and once his feathers had fallen off, he reappeared looking entirely normal. He even joined in the laughing. Okay, Neville doesn't exactly come off as victimized here, or tortured, harassed, or bullied in any way. Rather, he sees the joke and shares in it. And besides, if you can't laugh at yourself, who can you laugh at? And, as Darrin pointed out (we bad people have to stick together), F&G do have a sense of humor strong enough to make them laugh at themselves whenever they get shown up, cf. their failed attempt to enter the Triwizard Tournament. Cindy: Take the Ton-Tongue Toffee, where the twins deliberately victimized Dudley for being hungry, overweight, and not magical. I certainly think reasonable minds can differ on this point as well, but I have to wonder whether the conduct of the twins is every bit as hurtful to those on the receiving end as Draco's taunts about the Weasleys' poverty.<<<<<<<<<<<< No, they don't victimize Dudley for being hungry, overweight, and not magical -- they take advantage of it, yes, but the purpose behind the Ton-Tongue Toffee wasn't to Muggle-bait, it was to extract revenge (I am in no way saying that's a laudable motivation, merely pointing out that your attribution is not wholly on-target.) From GF5: "It *isn't funny!" Mr. Weasley shouted. "That sort of behavior seriously undermines wizard-Muggle relations! I spend half my life campaigning against the mistreatment of Muggles, and my own sons --" "We didn't give it to him because he's a Muggle!" said Fred indignantly. "No, we gave it to him because he's a great bullying git," said George. "Isn't he, Harry?" "Yeah, he is, Mr. Weasley," said Harry earnestly. We have another example of Fred-n-George going to bat for Harry against the Dursleys, and that's their rescue of him from his bedroom/cell in CoS. Mrs. Weasley is simultaneously venting her rage and making them breakfast when George, in his defense, bursts out with, "They were starving him, Mum!" This assertion is 1.) very true and 2.) effective -- Molly relents a little. She agrees that Harry was in an absolutely untenable situation, and one he needed to be removed from. F&G simply beat her to the punch when it comes to said removal. Cindy: Hmmm. Draco is a racist, but he is many other things as well. For instance, he is an elitist. So it seems quite logical to reach the question of whether Draco's elitism is similar to the elitism Fred and George display in victimizing someone like Dudley. But again, we certainly should be able to disagree on this point and even be willing to hear the ideas of others without our tone becoming overly strident, I would hope.<<<<<<<<<< Well, being racist also implies being elitist; one would argue that they are, in some ways, cocomitant with each other, or that racism requires elitism in order for it to grow into the raging, nearsighted cancer that it is. Additionally, I'm beginning to wonder, as you said, if we're not beginning to see a polarization in our language due to the intensity of debate. "Them's fightin' words! And all that." Hopefully we can avoid vitriol :-) The thing is that I can't think of any pattern of F&G's behavior, outside of the TTT incident (I'm just going to write that from now on...) that fits that of an established, confirmed elitist, such as Draco or even Fudge, whose elitism is going to send the WW down a very dangerous track sooner or later. There seems to be a general sort of segregation, and even hints of superiority, the wizard world has for the Muggle world, but that F&G carry that to an extreme -- even if it's not to Draco's extreme -- doesn't seem to be indicated. Further, you have the wizarding world's opposite numbers to charge with racism and elitism, and here I'm talking about the Dursleys, who have systematically victimized Harry for being what he is, in a manner far more bullying and abusive than someone who drops a TTT on the floor. These people are in positions of absolute power and authority over Harry, but they see fit to further establish their dominance by bullying him and oppressing him at every turn -- and when Harry is given the power to fight back, like true bullies (as Darrin has said), they back down. To my mind, that oppression for the sake of it is far more unconscionable an act than anything F&G have carried out. Vernon says he and Petunia vowed to stamp out Harry's wizarding proclivities. Petunia's vituperation toward wizards in PS/SS is matched only by Draco's invective against Muggles; she dismisses the death of her sister as a massive inconvenience, calls her sister and her son freaks of nature, people who are abnormal, people who aren't deserving of human rights or basic consideration. Yeah, that's a class act right there. That's elitism, racism... stick any classist -ism you want to on there, and I believe it applies to a far more damning extent than it does to teenage pranks. Cindy: See, I think the twins have a superiority complex when it comes to Muggle relations. Maybe there are good reasons for this, but I sense it nonetheless. So is there some reason why the twins superiority complex vis a vis muggles is different from some of the elitism Draco has displayed?<<<<<<<<< Could you elaborate more on that, or are you drawing solely from the TTT incident? See my argument above -- I honestly don't think there's that much canon to prove F&G are any more elitist than your average wizard. And with a dad who works in the Department for Misuse of Muggle Artifacts, how could they be? HF. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bard7696 at aol.com Fri Aug 23 17:38:54 2002 From: bard7696 at aol.com (darrin_burnett) Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 17:38:54 -0000 Subject: Fred and George: The Bullies You Do Know In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43071 Cindy wrote: > > > First, how can you be prejudiced against a single person? Their > > chilliness, and that's what it is, nothing more, toward Cedric in > >GoF is sour grapes. Is it perfect behavior? No, but it certainly > >doesn't make them bullies. > > Well, now. Are the twins bullies? I guess we have to define our > terms a bit. I'll play it safe. To me, a bully is someone who > engages in bullying behavior, including any form of victimizing > weaker individuals. > > So are Fred and George bullies? Well, I think so. They play > practical jokes on people, including weaker individuals like > Neville. They stomp on unconscious individuals, IIRC. They hiss > newcomers. They pick on a helpless muggle. So yeah. They engage > in bullying behavior, therefore making them bullies. Amusing > bullies at times, granted. But I don't think one can escape being > labeled a bully by being charming and witty every now and then. > Let us break this down one-by-one. 1) The stomping -- Why do people refuse to acknowledge what Malfoy, Crabbe and Goyle were doing prior to this incident? It's like blinders, it really is. These three were saying, essentially, that Arthur Weasley was due to be killed becuase of his love of Muggles. (Well, Draco said it, but the others are his sheep, so they agreed) There is ONE incident of George stepping on Malfoy deliberately and Fred stepping on Goyle. Crabbe, apparently gets nothing. Then, they shove them into the hallway and if you read canon, are careful to step over the three Slyths on the way out. It is not an unfair assumption to make that Malfoy and Crabbe and Goyle would have started a physical fight in that compartment, had Fred and George not arrived. And given the size of Crabbe and Goyle, is that a fair fight? I've heard the argument go like this. Well, we like them because they are Harry's friends. How about we like them because they don't go around advocating murder of people who they believe have inferior blood? How about we like them because they don't have a father who cowardly manipulates events so that an 11-year-old girl is in danger? How about we like them because they don't taunt someone for the scar on his head, fake injuries to get a teacher fired, make fun of someone's poverty or put weaker kids in leg-locker curses? And how about we like them because they took a two-second opportunity to help slap down the ones that do all of the above. 2) the two-ton toffee incident with Dudley. Much of the same argument. Again, I wish people would remember who the original bullying victim is. It's not Dudley and it's not Draco. It's Harry. 3) Hiss newcomers. Again, I fail to see how this reaches the level of anything Draco has ever done. Considering the background of at least the majority Slytherins -- pureblood -- what makes anyone believe Braddock was so traumatized by this? Jeez, it might be a point of honor among the Slyth crowd. Please, do not believe I am defending Fred and George as saints. I can see their act getting old. But I believe that they are nowhere near the bullies Draco and his gang are and their motivations are much less dangerous. 4) Neville. I am assuming we're talking about the canary cream, which after all was a temporary thing. Again, compare this to the leg- locker curse by Draco and I think you see vastly different behaviors. > Darrin: > > > To compare Fred and George being cold to Cedric in a small group > >to Draco's actions is unconscionable. > > I beg your pardon? > > "Unconscionable" means "Not restrained by conscience; unscrupulous; > beyond prudence or reason; excessive." Surely we can disagree about a few scenes in a book series without anyone calling anyone else's > scruples into question. > My language was carefully chosen there. I sincerely believe that there is such bending and twisting to somehow attach the same level of severity to the actions of Gryffindors, any Gryffindors, as to Slytherins, that crucial elements -- such as the racism behind Draco's actions -- are being ignored. To do that is to place the goal of the argument above the substance of the material you are arguing, which I find beyond prudence and reason and excessive. > As for me, I can see how reasonable people might differ on this > point. There is some similarity between Draco's actions and Fred > and George's actions, I would say. The difference in perception is > likely due to the fact that Harry considers himself an ally of Fred > and George and a foe of Draco. And as I said, the difference is that Fred and George do not espouse the same vile beliefs that Draco does. I guess one way to look at it is this: Why haven't Fred and George been left with their heads in a toilet somewhere? I mean, they are bigger than the younger kids, but certainly not bigger than the seventh-years. If their pranks are so intolerable to people, one would think the law of the playground would have stopped it. Their family certainly isn't influential enough (like Draco's) to instill silence. They don't seem to have problems getting dates, but they aren't heartthrobs. In short, there seems to be nothing external that prevents someone who really takes exception to their pranks from doing something about it. Yet, no one does. That tells me that their personal charisma and the fact that people realize it's just a joke, all in fun, no harm done, are working in their favor. > > Draco: > > > Now tell me that when Draco makes fun of the Weasleys' wealth, it > >is somehow on par with Fred and George's pranks. Anyone that says > >so is again, being unconscionable. > > Again, I am not sure I agree with you, and I hope this doesn't > reflect poorly on my own conscience or morality. ;-) > > Anyway, I do see some parallels between Draco's conduct in > belittling the Weasleys for their poverty and Fred and George's > pranks. Take the Canary Cream business, where the twins > deliberately steered a younger, less powerful student toward their > joke. Take the Ton-Tongue Toffee, where the twins deliberately > victimized Dudley for being hungry, overweight, and not magical. I > certainly think reasonable minds can differ on this point as well, > but I have to wonder whether the conduct of the twins is every bit > as hurtful to those on the receiving end as Draco's taunts about the > Weasleys' poverty. Again, we are talking about pranks that are temporary, and with built in fixers - the canary creams wear off, and Mr. Weasley was there to help. I agree, the ton-tongue thing was pretty dangerous. But I refuse to see Dudley as a victim. Or if he is a victim, it's a victim of his own gluttony and karmic payback for what he's done to Harry. > Darrin: > > > 3) Draco is racist. I cannot put in any plainer than that. To > > apologize for Draco is to apologize for a stone-cold racist. > > Therefore, to credibly compare anyone to Draco is to necessarily > > prove that person or persons is also racist. Fred and George are > >not. They do not tinge their humor at anyone group in particular. > > Hmmm. Draco is a racist, but he is many other things as well. For > instance, he is an elitist. So it seems quite logical to reach the > question of whether Draco's elitism is similar to the elitism Fred > and George display in victimizing someone like Dudley. No, there is no evidence Fred and George go after Dudley simply because he is a Muggle or simply because he is fat. Again, they go after him because he is a bully himself and they know what Harry went through We have plenty of evidence that Draco hates people simply because of the blood that flows through their veins or the amount of money in their vault at Gringotts. So, the elitism is in no way similar. > Darrin: > > > 4) Fred and George have never behaved with any kind of superiority > > complex, as Draco does. If anything, they are compensating for > > inferiority complexes, considering they have Percy, Bill and > >Charlie to live up to. Thus endeth THAT argument. > > Well, let's not spike the ball quite so quickly, as I don't see the > referee signaling a touchdown just yet. I mean, you know what > happens to players who spike prematurely, don't you? They call it a > *fumble.* ;-) > Well, if you're going to snip me prematurely, I have no choice, but to fumble, as you're cutting off my hands. Where I said "Thus endeth THAT argument" was in relation to the twins picking on Bill, not on the inferority complex. > See, I think the twins have a superiority complex when it comes to > Muggle relations. Maybe there are good reasons for this, but I > sense it nonetheless. So is there some reason why the twins > superiority complex vis a vis muggles is different from some of the > elitism Draco has displayed? > Again, I don't see their prank on Dudley as being an attack on Muggles for the sake of attacking Muggles, which is the direct parallel we're looking for to Draco's elitism. > Yes, but what have F&G ever had to run *from?* They get away with > *everything.* Hey, who is to say that there isn't some bias in > favor of Fred and George and against Draco? Fred and George sneak > all over the school, and nothing happens. Draco is out of bounds in > PS/SS, and he is immediately trekked off to the Forbidden Forest, > where he meets up with the Dark Lord in Vapor Form. Maybe Draco has > a *point* about disparate treatment after all. ;-) When have F&G been caught? You can't argue disparate treatment unless you have an example where they have been caught and let go. > > Cindy -- who is wondering how on earth she wound up *defending* > Draco, and who is wondering whether her efforts to play Devil's > Advocate have led to a a proliferation of snowballs in Hades right > about now Darrin -- Really hopes my strident tone doesn't create Devil's advocacy for the sake of it. :) The Strident Tones would also be a GREAT name for a band. From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Aug 23 18:02:06 2002 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 18:02:06 -0000 Subject: Fred and George: The Bullies You Do Know In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43072 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "ssk7882" wrote: > Oh, and then there's little Malcolm Baddock. Eleven years old, it's his very first day at school, the poor kid's probably scared out of his gourd to begin with, he's just been sorted into Slytherin, and on his way to the table, big strong sixteen-year-old Fred and George actually *hiss* him. > > You know, we've never heard of even the Slytherins doing anything like that? Never once has there been a mention of *anyone* jeering, hissing, or booing at the Sorting Ceremony. Except for Fred and George, that is, because Fred and George are a couple of thuggish *cads.* > Oh dear, this is a bit strong, I think. Malcolm Baddock is the first student picked for Slytherin and Fred and George mark the occasion by making, um, snake noises. Slytherin's emblem, you know. Is that so terrible? Pippin From tmarends at yahoo.com Fri Aug 23 18:05:16 2002 From: tmarends at yahoo.com (tmarends) Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 18:05:16 -0000 Subject: Fred and George: The Bullies You Do Know In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43073 > They get away with > *everything.* Hey, who is to say that there isn't some bias in > favor of Fred and George and against Draco? Fred and George sneak > all over the school, and nothing happens. Draco is out of bounds in > PS/SS, and he is immediately trekked off to the Forbidden Forest, > where he meets up with the Dark Lord in Vapor Form. Maybe Draco has > a *point* about disparate treatment after all. ;-) > > Cindy -- Who says they get away with everything?? Doesn't Molly say that she gets so many owl posts about "those two" that she doesn't know what to do about them?? We may not "see" them getting into trouble, but they certainly do. Tim A. From yrawen at ontheqt.org Fri Aug 23 18:25:17 2002 From: yrawen at ontheqt.org (yr awen) Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 14:25:17 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Fred and George: The Bullies You Do Know References: Message-ID: <006601c24ad2$6ec09e60$badef718@kzo.chartermi.net> No: HPFGUIDX 43074 Oh, I thought of this when I was in the shower Cindy said: > They get away with > *everything.* Hey, who is to say that there isn't some bias in > favor of Fred and George and against Draco? Fred and George sneak > all over the school, and nothing happens. Draco is out of bounds in > PS/SS, and he is immediately trekked off to the Forbidden Forest, > where he meets up with the Dark Lord in Vapor Form. Maybe Draco has > a *point* about disparate treatment after all. ;-) No, he doesn't, because there's nothing to suggest the twins get away with bloody murder every time they pull a prank. Molly mentions that she's gotten more irritated owls from school over the twins' behavior than Bill, Charlie, or Percy, indicating that some of the faculty are aware of F&G's behavior. Further, they discover the Map while waiting for Filch to pass down his sentence concerning the setting off of some dungboms (to which they confess unabashedly to Harry that they were responsible.) And finally, Ron tells Harry and Hermione by way of consolation for their collectively losing 150 points in PS/SS that "Fred and George have lost loads of points in all the time they've been here, and people still like them" (PS/SS15, US.) If F&G were mean, nasty, and generally undesirable characters given to bullying and harassing the weak, I don't think anyone in Gryffindor would have stood for it. No one in school would have, for that matter -- especially when it comes to losing House points. Additionally, wouldn't it go against the grain to have people of said description in Gryffindor, as "daring, nerve, and *chivalry*" is their major descriptor? HF. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From gohana_chan02 at lycos.com Fri Aug 23 18:40:18 2002 From: gohana_chan02 at lycos.com (Hana) Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 14:40:18 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Fred and George: The Bullies You Do Know Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43075 I thought Id add some definitions to the argument about Fred and George being bullies. BULLY: a person who hurts, persecutes, or intimidates weaker people. TEASE: to vex (someone) maliciously or playfully. PRACTICAL JOKE: a prank or trick usually intended to make the victim appear foolish. TRICK: a mischievous, malicious, or humorous action or plan; joke PRANK: a mischievous trick or joke. MISCHEVIOUS: 1. inclined to acts of mischief. 2. teasing; slightly malicious. 3. causing or intended to cause harm. MISCHEIF: 1. wayward but not malicious behaviour, usually of children, that causes trouble, etc, 2. a playful inclination to behave in this way or to tease or disturb. 3. injury or harm caused by a person or thing. 4. a source of trouble, difficulty, etc. MALICE: 1. the desire to do harm or mischief. 2. evil intent. 3. Law: the state of mind with which an act is committed and from which the intent to do wrong may be inferred malicious adj. (these definitions are from the Collins Dictionary and Thesaurus HarperCollins Publishers, 1992) Now, IMO its impossible to avoid the negative aspect of Fred and Georges pranks, but I dont think that they qualify as bullies per se. Lets look at their behaviour. Do they hurt, persecute or intimidate weaker people? That seems to be more of Malfoys style with his comments on Mudbloods and the Weasleys lack of money. He always picks on weaker people because hes always got Crabbe and Goyle with him when he bullies and very few will take them on. In fact, IIRC, he only seems to go after people when he ~is~ in a position of strength think of when he stole the Remberall in PS/SS he threw the ball rather than confront Harry alone where he didnt have Crabbe and Goyle to help with the intimidation factor. Do Fred and George do this? They dont seem to. They fit much better into the other definitions. Now, saying this, the fact that there is a repetition of the word malicious which has very negative connotations. It cant be denied that there is a negative factor to the twins pranks and jokes, the thing is, are the twins more inclined to maliciousness or mischief? They seem, IMO, more inclined to playful mischief. As for being bullies, do they hurt people? Not physically, and, other than what Ginny wrote to the diary in CoS I can't think of anyone who was hurt by their actions other than a moment of embarrassment. Now, embarrassment like this can, in some cases, scar someone for life, but we havent seen a lot of negative reaction from their pranks yet. Their pranks never seem to cause physical harm either. Now with Ginny, do they seem to deliberately hurt their sister, or is it more likely that they dont realise how upset she is by their jokes? It seems like the latter to me. They dont seem to persecute anyone in particular the Weasleys get the brunt of a lot of the jokes, but thats more because theyre available. They dont seem to centre anyone in particular out other than that younger children because they dont know the twins as well and are more likely to fall for the jokes, but are they trying to be cruel? To go after them because their age means they deserve to be victims? I don't think so. It seems more of a case where playing the jokes on their yearmates wont work because their yearmates probably know to be wary and won't fall for them as easily. Do they intimidate people? They dont seem to. They persuade people to try the pranks in some cases, but they dont do it by looming over them or threatening physical harm. They might use a bit of peer pressure, but that seems to be the extent of it. No one is afraid of being beaten up by them, theyre just a bit worried about momentary embarrassment. So, in the end are they bullies? I dont think so. I think that theyre thoughtless kids who dont take into consideration the effects that their jokes might have on others. I dont think that theyre doing things to deliberately hurt others, theyre doing it for their amusement and the amusement of others. I can see them playing malicious tricks on Malfoy in the future, but as yet, they seem to stick to playful intent, even if the results may not be totally positive. As for the hexing scene on the train, I dont think that falls under bullying or pranks. Its an extreme overreaction to Malfoys nasty words and attitude on the part of ~all five~ of the kids there. They should have told an adult and not used hexes, but Harry, Ron, and Hermione are just as guilty of that one as the twins are. The fact that George (only George) walked ~on~ Malfoy is just pettiness on his part. It wasn't even remotely a mature thing to do, and I think it was just that -- petty immaturity. If thats an indication of bullying, Harry and Ron are equally guilty since the three of them kicked, rolled and pushed the unconscious Malfoy, Crabbe and Goyle . . . out into the corridor. . . (GoF ch 37) Its interesting to note that Fred, like Hermione, simply cast a jinx and didnt touch Malfoy and crew after that. Well, thats my two knuts. --- --Hana -- who would like to see Fred and George pranked as much as they prank others so that maybe they'd ease off a bit when they were embarrassed. Then again, they'd probably just start a prank war. __________________________________________________________ Outgrown your current e-mail service? Get a 25MB Inbox, POP3 Access, No Ads and No Taglines with LYCOS MAIL PLUS. http://login.mail.lycos.com/brandPage.shtml?pageId=plus From bdmorrp at budget.state.ny.us Fri Aug 23 18:51:39 2002 From: bdmorrp at budget.state.ny.us (erisedstraeh2002) Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 18:51:39 -0000 Subject: Fawkes' Tail Feather in Harry and Voldemort's Wands (WAS: Fawkes and the Sea) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43076 Another thought on Fawkes being Godric Gryffindor's phoenix - both Harry and Voldemort's wands have the only two tail feathers of Fawkes ever used in a wand. Since the "wand chooses the wizard," it makes sense to me that if Harry is a descendant of Gryffindor, a wand with Fawkes' tail feather would "choose" him. And red and gold sparks come out of the wand the first time Harry waves it - the colors of both Fawkes and Gryffindor House. But why would a wand with Fawkes' tail feather also choose Voldemort/Riddle if Voldemort is the heir of Slytherin, Gryffindor's enemy (IMO), and Fawkes was Gryffindor's phoenix? Well, maybe Voldemort/Riddle hadn't turned evil yet when he bought his wand from Mr. Ollivander at age 11. If his mother died right after he was born and his father left him in a Muggle orphanage, like Harry, he probably did not find out that he was a wizard until his Hogwarts letter arrived. So there might not have been enough time for his anti-Muggle anger to brew before he went to buy his wand. After all, as Dumbledore tells Harry at the end of CoS, "You happen to have many qualities Salazar Slytherin prized in his hand-picked students. His own very rare gift, Parseltongue - resourcefulness - determination - a certain disregard for rules." Since it's "our choices...that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities," a wand can't possibly know (IMO) what choices the wizard it's sizing up will make prospectively. All the wand can assess is the wizard's current qualities (IMO). So perhaps the wand sensed Voldemort/Riddle's qualities, which Dumbledore points out are similar to Harry's, without knowing of the poor choices Voldemort/Riddle will make in the future. And why would Fawkes only donate two tail feathers to the wand making cause? I think this is part of Dumbledore's master plan to vanquish Voldemort, and is why he needs Harry. I think Dumbledore was planning on a final Harry-Voldemort showdown when Harry comes of age in which their wands wouldn't be able to work properly against one another because of the priori incantetem effect. Then Harry would be able to use his then-fully developed wandless magic (going back to that JKR interview - perhaps through his eyes?) to finish Voldemort off (IMO, Harry's internal powers have *not* yet been developed to the point where he can channel and use them in a controlled way without a wand. But he's getting there!). But due to the graveyard duel, Voldemort now knows that his wand isn't effective against Harry's wand (Dumbledore and Ollivander were the only ones who knew this previously). So will Voldemort now get a different wand? Since the wand that chooses you is the one that you can use the most effectively, will his substitute wand not work as well? Or has Dumbledore's master plan been completely thrown off course? ~Phyllis waiting for Grey Wolf to pick this apart From gohana_chan02 at lycos.com Fri Aug 23 18:59:19 2002 From: gohana_chan02 at lycos.com (Hana) Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 14:59:19 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] "Delicate" Harry Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43077 I have another take on the idea of Harry being "Delicate" I checked my dictionary, which is a Collins (originally printed in Great Britian) and one of the definitions for delicate is : easily damaged or injured; fragile. Now, this might, in some ways fit Harry. Except for when he encountered Voldemort at age 1 and survived, he ~does~ seem to get damaged or injured quite easily, especially with magic. Think of how often he's been the Hospital Wing by the start of PoA, and think of how many times he ends up their after that -- he gets injured a lot. Now, part of his is due to him being a target of evil forces, but even Hermione and Ron, who go through a lot with him, don't end up being hurt as much as Harry does, and the 'average' student is hurt even less. Perhaps that is what was meant with the "delicate" comments. As for an emotional aspect of this, it would fit as well to some degree. He is easy to hurt emotionally, especially when his friends or family is involved. --- --Hana __________________________________________________________ Outgrown your current e-mail service? Get a 25MB Inbox, POP3 Access, No Ads and No Taglines with LYCOS MAIL PLUS. http://login.mail.lycos.com/brandPage.shtml?pageId=plus From gandharvika at hotmail.com Fri Aug 23 16:06:35 2002 From: gandharvika at hotmail.com (Gail Bohacek) Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 16:06:35 +0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Harry's Astrological Chart Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43078 Hi there! This is a very basic, basic, basic outline of Harry's chart which I cast simply for my amusement and curiosity. I share it with you here for exactly the same reasons. A good astrologer would be able to give more information...I am not a good astrologer. I daresay not even a mediocre one. If there are people out there who can add more detail, they are more than welcome to their input. One's Sun sign reveals one's basic personality, and Harry's Sun is in Leo, which means he's self-confident and a leader...determined, sometimes stubborn. Other keywords are proud, courageous, and self-assured (sometimes to a fault). His Sun is in the 11th House, which rules over goals, groups and friends...indicating a strong desire to accomplish something important that will benefit others, humanitarian type goals and gives leadership qualities. Though Harry is a Leo, is Ascendant sign is in Libra. The Ascendant determines how other people perceive you...and being in Libra this shows a strong sense of social justice, equality, fair play, peace and balance. This is in his 1st House, along with the planets Mars and Pluto, which serve to strengthen these above mentioned qualities. Mars is a planet of action, and which paired with his Ascendant, shows that other people are expecting Harry to do take action for change. Pluto represents one's soul journey or purpose, or lesson to learn in this life. Boiled down, I'd say this shows how Harry is expected to kill Voldemort (no new news there). The next sign under discussion would be the Moon, but this is a difficult planet to read in Harry's case because although we have Harry's birth date, and assuming he was born somewhere in England, we do not have his exact birth time. The Moon travels very quickly through the zodiac and if the birth time is not exact, it can throw things off. So I admit that I can't be so certain about the Moon's placement. Therefore I hesitate to say anything about it. His Mercury is with Gemini in the 10th House...this indicates a quick mind, an inquiring mind...somebody who is adaptable, likes to explore, desires further knowledge, is intuitive...it also shows somebody who is in charge. I also read that this placement can indicate some problem with the father, especially when challenged by other aspects. Venus is associated with creativity and self-esteem as well as one's possessions. Harry's Venus is with Gemini, suggesting lightheartedness and emotional objectivity as well as a lack of commitment in love. This is all in his 9th house which shows an understanding of foreign people and places and indicates that one may marry a foreigner (Cho Chang?) or spend some time abroad. There could be interest in artistic and cultural subjects, religion and music. Harry's Jupiter with Virgo in the 12th House, along with Saturn is an interesting combination. Jupiter w/Virgo values work and service to others, Saturn w/Virgo is practical, driven and lets nothing stand in it's way, especially pleasure (think of when Harry snuck out of Hogwarts's in his invisibility cape to get to Hogsmeade). Jupiter here shows him to be compassionate and helping others with a strong religious/philosophical faith. Again, very intuitive, but may fall into overindulgence or impractical idealism and the neglect of to develop their creative abilities to help others. I'm also reading here that, "people with this placement are often benefited by others anonymously" (hmmmmm). Saturn here shows him to be reserved, preferring to work alone..hesitant to share his feelings, and is worried about his own self-worth. This placement is often found with those who work for large institutions or the government (MoM?) Uranus is with Scorpio in the 2ed House...those born under this sign are just now beginning to discover their power to make changes. The 2ed House also covers the area of one's possessions, and shows that he makes money in unusual ways and through unlikely opportunities. Neptune is the planet that governs the unknown...the mystical. This Sagittarius in his 3ed House this indicates openness, honesty, idealism, and the desire to revise existing laws or ways to reflect his higher philosophical values. It also indicates a daydreamer who needs to learn to concentrate, but also shows strong psychic abilities and a deep need to learn about the unexplained. A strong interest in learning, writing and about the mystical/occult. There is actually much more that can be interpreted in this chart, such as Harry's unaspected Houses, different conjunctions, squares, oppositions, trines and sextiles...all of which give even more fine-tuned information into Harry's character. But this takes me into areas which I have absolutely no knowledge in, and it gives me a headache just to think about it. This astology thing is not as easy as it seems. It was kinda fun, though. For what ever it's worth... -Gail B. who's going back to writing filks for a while. _________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com From jodel at aol.com Fri Aug 23 16:46:11 2002 From: jodel at aol.com (jodel at aol.com) Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 12:46:11 EDT Subject: On the Nature of Dark Magic Message-ID: <9c.24e5777b.2a97c0d3@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 43079 "sydpad" writes in Digest 2072; >>Just what makes the the Dark Arts dark? To cut straight to the chase, they're parasitic. If clean magic involves focusing the casters inherent power, dirty magic involves stealing it from someone else.<< I have a theory which I have mentioned on other boards, and which is probably not original here, although I've not seen it brought up in the time since I joined on. (Fairly recently, so that isn't saying much.) I am of the opinion that the Dark Arts differ from those of "Light" magic in that they are *interactive*. All power has a price. With magic that is classified as Light, the "price" is typically the time and effort needed to learn to master and control it. It does not alter the user to perform Light magic. With the Dark Arts this is not the case. Dark magic inherently attempts to alter the user into a better channel for itself. Dark spells themselves are not all hostile in nature, and some may be benign or downright benevolent. But they all pull on the user, trying to shape him into their purpose, which is to collect the ambient power/lifeforce which surrounds the host, condense and focus it and drive it back with maximum force. A wizard who has lost himself to the Dark Arts becomes essentially a conduit of agressive power directed at whatever gets his attention, shaded to some degree by an independent mind and personal preferences, but having essentially lost his underlying humanity. A loose canon, indeed. There are more ways to loose one's soul than to be kissed by a Dementor. Immersion in the Dark Arts supresses empathy, distorts judgement and leaves any number of psychic traces on it. I've wondered if the "silvery bloodstains" that the Bloody Baron goes about decked in might be a visual indication of psychic damage brought about by dealings in the Dark Arts. Which is why the Dark Arts (which it is never stated are illegal in their entirety) are so rigorously controlled. Because one CAN make use of them in relative safety, if one takes care to monitor and repair the damage. And, of course, one can STUDY them extensively without damage if one has the restraint not to make active use of them. (Durmstrang, after all, does include them in its curiculum.) Which is why I believe that the MoM's Dark Arts consultants are a highly respected group of individuals who are brought in to discuss various factors when an incident comes up which is believed to be connected with Dark magic. I also think that Lucius Malfoy (and probably his father) were respected Dark Arts consultants to the Ministry BEFORE Voldemort's first rise to power and that this public position contributed to how Lucius managed to dodge the bullet by claiming that he had been under Imperius. After all, wouldn't a Dark Arts specialist have been the FIRST person that Voldemort would have wanted under his own control? It also explains how he can still be waltzing in and out of the Ministry offices as if he owns them. But there is no question that the Dark Arts are extremely dangerous and that anyone known to be engaged in this study is going to be closely scrutinised. (One reason in itself for why Malfoy actively cultivates the likes of Fudge. May even have him under Imperius. Fudge can vouch for him.) Because the frequency with which Dark wizards DO lose control to it makes the whole study very dubious, and the Ministry tries very hard to discourage people from getting involved in the first place. And it's an uphill battle, because since the Dark Arts DO amplify the power collected, they are extremely attractive to the greedy, the weak and the thrill-seeker. I suspect that the aprehension of loosers who get in over their heads and have to be packed off to St Mungos into detox is a daily occurance. ("Oh an Auror's lot is not a happy one!" -- with apologies to Gilbert and Sulivan.) -JOdel From purple_801999 at yahoo.com Fri Aug 23 19:37:18 2002 From: purple_801999 at yahoo.com (purple_801999) Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 19:37:18 -0000 Subject: Practicality of LOLLIPOPS In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43080 theresnothingtoit wrote- > Now don't get me wrong, I love the theory of LOLLIPOPS. Far be it > from me to even look at the mighty LOLLIPOPS the wrong way. I marvel > at the amount of can(n)on it has produce from almost nothing and its > possibility for incredibly bangy action. But, and this is quite a > big but, in a series written almost entirely from the point of view > of Harry how will a Snape/Lily romance be written, even if it is one of unrequited love? > > Snape, although a highly emotional man capably of strong feelings > does strike me as a very personal man and is unlikely to open his > heart and let it spill out in a bloody mess in front of Harry. > I have a feeling that someone will fill in the blanks for Harry ala Dumbledore or a new character perhaps after the initial revelation. > > 2. Blast from the Past > One of Lily's friends turns up, as we haven't met any yet, > and says "what, you didn't know? It was so obvious", perhaps the > mysterious Florence. This works even if they had a brief (and > secretive) relationship or it was all in Snapes head. I like this as it has plenty of scope for humour as Snape desperately tries to shut her up without coming out and saying "don't say I fancied Lily, they don't know!" > I wrote in an earlier post that I believe Arabella Figg to be a friend or mentor of Lily's (it's about time we met some of her friends). If that is so she would have all sorts of information that Lily would have never told the Mauraders or a casual aqquaintance. Especially if the Snape/Lily thing was mutual. I'm going for a strong friendship or an intense teenage crush. > 3. Taken by force > That is to say Snape reveals all under the Imperius or after > having Veritaserum rammed down his throat. This of course could be > used after any of the theories to extract the whole truth. > Hey, you know Voldemort and the other DE's would love a chance to torture the DE that has left forever and what better way than to remind him of how despite his best efforts his dear Lily was still AK'ed.And to have him admit it in front of Harry no less. > > So what do you think? Of course it wont mean much if Snape never > love Lily but there is defiantly more going on between Snape and > James than we have been told. > There is a lot more going on than meets the eye. I am convince LOLLIPOPS is on the right track because Snape has taken every opportunity to bash James in front of Harry for four years but never a word against or about Lily. It's like an elephant in the room for me. You know if there was anything bad to say about Lily, Snape would have screamed it from the battlements of Hogwarts. And it caters to the tragic romantic in all of us. Or some of us. Ok,me. Another thing this made me think of is what if Snape wanted to turn Sirius in so much in the Shrieking Shack not because of a twenty year grudge but because he still believed him to be the traitor? If Snape was the spy who tipped off James and Lily that they were next on Voldie's hit list then having someone who Snape already hated be the one who undermined all of his efforts and got the Potters killed anyway would help to explain his unwillingness to listen to or believe Sirius's story. And don't worry I think Snape does hate Harry and basically everyone else, and he still can even if we find out he loved Lily. I doubt it would change Snape's opinion of Harry if it was revealed. -Olivia From dicentra at xmission.com Fri Aug 23 20:16:17 2002 From: dicentra at xmission.com (dicentra63) Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 20:16:17 -0000 Subject: TBAY: Eagle owl redux In-Reply-To: <20020415111009.83390.qmail@web13502.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43081 Dicentra lounges on the deck of the GARBAGE SCOW (Gibberish, Altogether Redundant Blather And Gobbledegook Everywhere! Superfluous Can(n)on Obtains Welcome), reading GoF and trying to find more can(n)ons for her barge. Suddenly, she sits bolt upright. "Wait a minute..." she says. "Wait. A. Minute." She Apparates off the SCOW into the TBAY Museum and runs into the dimly lit archive room. The room is empty except for long rows of filing cabinets--43 of which are labeled--and a whiteboard. She pulls out her wand and taps the cabinets. "Show me 'eagle owl,'" she commands. One drawer opens, labelled 42000-42999. Five files pop up. She looks at them, perplexed. "No, that's too recent," she mutters. "Show me *all* the instances of 'eagle owl' in the whole archive," she repeats. The same drawer opens and the same files pop up. "Curse that Yahoomort," she says, teeth clenched. "I'm going to have to do this by hand." She pulls open 36000-36999, but the files are from March 2002. "April, April, I'm thinking," she mumbles as she flips through the folders in 37000-37999. "Aha! 37811!" She opens the folder and finds the first entry by LizGiz, with entries from Grey Wolf, Porphyria, and Cindy attached. She reads through them quickly. "They just about had it," she thinks. "Either we've got ourselves a FLINT, or I've got me a new little can(n)on." Dicentra goes to the white board and begins to write down the key facts. Liz Giz quotes Pippin who mentioned that Draco has an eagle owl. "DRACO owns the eagle owl???" LizGiz writes. "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 chimney; 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?" Dicentra scribbles "Owl Flies Through Coil" at the top of the board, the begins to list the facts: "Malfoys have an eagle owl" "Harry rides an eagle owl in his dream to Riddle Manor" She reads Grey Wolf's response: "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 beginning, 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." Oh, but why not, Wolfie? Dicentra thinks. She grabs GoF and reviews what the owl does in Harry's dream: "[description of the owl flying into Riddle mansion] Harry had left the owl's back ... he was watching, now, as it fluttered across the room, into a chair with its back to him.... There were two dark shapes on the floor beside the chair ... both of them were stirring.... [description of Nagini and Wormtail] "You are in luck, Wormtail," said a cold, high-pitched voice from the depths of the chair where the owl had landed. "You are very fortunate indeed. Your blunder has not ruined everything. He is dead." After more sniveling from Wormtail, Voldemort hits him with a Crucio, and Harry awakens to find his scar burning. He goes to Dumbledore's office, going over in his mind what he saw. "He had heard Voldemort accusing Wormtail of making a blunder ... but the owl had brought good news, the blunder had been repaired, somebody was dead..." (578) Dicentra adds to the list: "The owl delivers the message to Voldemort telling him Crouch Sr. is dead" But is this the same owl that flew through the coil? Was it delivering the message to Crouch!Moody that his father had escaped? Porphyria things it's possible: "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." But Cindy points out that it can't be that particular message from Voldemort: "In GoF 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 GoF 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." Cindy provides a timeline showing when events occured. Dicentra writes down the salient points: "Crouch Jr. says he waited a week after getting word from Voldemort until his father showed" "The owl flies through the coil before Easter" "Crouch Sr. shows up in late May" Cindy concludes that the owl in the coil is NOT delivering word to Crouch!Moody that his father escaped because the timeline does not bear it out. Dicentra scratches her head. "But if it isn't delivering that message, what is it doing? Why mention it? Either it's SCOW fodder or it's a FLINT. And as much as I like collecting can(n)ons for my little barge, I'm going to bet that this one is a FLINT." Dicentra writes again (using another color ink and starting at the top): "It's entirely possible that Owl Flies Through Coil used to occupy a different position in the book, in an earlier draft. It could have been mid-May when Harry stood in the Owlery, but in the course of rewriting, JKR moved it to an earlier position but forgot to correct Crouch Jr.'s speech. Conversely, Crouch Sr. could have shown up before Easter, and that event got moved. Considering how big the book is and how crunched she was for time (which she's now making up for, mind you), and how hard it is to notice those types of discrepancies when you've spent the past year eating, drinking, and sleeping a single manuscript, it could easily be a FLINT." Dicentra changes to another marker color and writes over the top of the other writing. "Furthermore, inserting the detail of Owl Flies Through Coil into that scene is just the kind of thing JKR likes to do. She points out that it's an eagle owl (she names the species of all owls, I've noticed) and makes sure Harry rides an eagle owl in his dream to Riddle Manor. I'm fairly sure she doesn't use eagle owls for any but this task and in conjunction with the Malfoys. It only makes sense that Crouch!Moody should use the same owl Voldemort sent him to send the return message. He can't very well be seen going up to the school owlery to send a message. So her plan was to slip this clue right under our noses: the owl Harry rides to Riddle Manor came from Hogwarts. The notice that someone was dead came from Hogwarts. Notice that *Crouch Sr.* was dead. But she messed up with the timeline in the rewrites. Otherwise, there's no reason to include Owl Flies Through Coil." Dicentra switches to another color and writes in the margins: "But is it the Malfoys' owl? Very possibly. But that would mean Voldemort is in touch with Lucius even at that early date, meaning that Lucius *is* fumbling with his lines at the graveyard. MAGIC DISHWASHER, Pip?" When she's done, Dicentra puts the cap on the marker and stands back to look at her handiwork. It's a veritable palimpsest of colored lines, mostly illegible except for a few letters that managed to remain uncovered. She picks out the letters and is surprised to find that they form words: "All your base are belong to us*." "Hmmm," she muses. "Like that makes any sense." She adds her entry to the folder 37811, stuffs it back into the filing cabinet, and Apparates back to the SCOW. --Dicentra, who doesn't mind passing up the occasional can(n)on *Put this phrase into Google, including the quotation marks, to see what the phrase means. From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Fri Aug 23 21:44:57 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 21:44:57 -0000 Subject: Wandless!Harry - A Fatal Flaw?/Fawkes' Tail Feather in H+V's wands In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43082 Phyllis wrote: > I think I've found a fatal flaw in this > premise, which is that Harry was wandless when he was tied to the > gravestone and he didn't do any magic at all, powerful or not, while > he was tied up. The instances we've seen of Harry doing wandless > magic - the Aunt Marge inflation incident and the vanishing glass at > the zoo, for example - haven't involved him using his arms to make > the magic happen, so this suggests to me that he only needs his brain > (and perhaps those gorgeous green Lily eyes??) to make the wandless > magic happen. So, this suggests to me that Harry could have > performed wandless magic while he was tied up. > > So I think if Voldemort truly thought that Harry was more powerful > without a wand, he would have killed him immediately upon his arrival > in the graveyard (probably by slitting his throat so he could get > Harry's blood for the regeneration potion by force - oh, perish the > thought!). > > ~Phyllis I don't really see where the fatal flaw is. He didn't kill Harry as soons as he got to the graveyard because I'd imagine that he needs the person alive for the potion to work, but that's not really the point. The fact is that voldemort is scared of Harry. He is nowhere sure he can kill the boy. He is going to try, of course, but his plan B assures him that even in the probable case Harry manages to escape again, something good comes out of it. Harry, after all, is taken to the graveyard because Voldemort believes, IMO, that he can get to share Harry's magical protection against the AKs by using his blood in the potion (this is a conjeture, though, Voldemort never actually tells Harry the reason he was chosen. If you fdon't like it, read: "for reasons of his own that precised Harry and not any other wizartd or witch of WW). Once the potion has worked, he'll obviously need to see if this is really the case (which explains why he touches the boy), so Harry has to be alive until after the potion. Why keep him alive afterward? Well, there are two main reasons. One, that he's feeding him false information to take back to Dumbledore, by giving a very garbled account of what has been going on. And two, because he half-expects (and hal-wishes) Harry to escape while he's with his back turned. If Harry had escaped during Voldemort's speech, well, everything would be like what happened sans the priori incantatem, and with a little less info thrown in. Of course, Voldemort isn't sure that Harry is going to escape, but he still has to have him believe that he has forgotten about him, in his drive to restore his dominion over the DE. After a while, however, Voldemort runs out of false info to feed Harry, and he has to get with the show. At this point, Voldemort is running a big risk. As many have pointed out, unfocused magic happens both when a wizzard is scared and when he's enraged, and in the enraged cases, the unfocused magic tends to be offensive in nature (which only stands to reason, really). Voldemort doesn't want *any* unfocused magic happening now. He knows Harry is powerful, and that his unfocused magic could probably hurt him more than a petty focused magic spell he might now (since he probably knows what spells Harry is capable of thanks to Crouch). Voldemort, after all, is an evil person who does not need to show his superiority by beating someone in fair ground, especially when that person is nowhere up to the level of Voldemort except for some magical shield of unknown properties. And herein lies the nucleus of the problem: Voldemort doesn't know what are the unfocused capabilities of Harry, but he probably believes that this capabilities are somehow related to what nearly killed the first and second times. After all, a one year old baby *doesn't* have conscious thought, but it has a protection instinct. Last time, he got blasted because of that unconscious magic, just as it happened when Harry was a baby. He's not falling for the same trick a third time: he's going to give him a wand, and have him focus in the situation, to rationalize, and to use his conscient thought. And hopefully, Voldemort must think, this will be enough to get through the damned boy's defenses. And he got it right, too. After all, GoF!Harry with a wand is nowhere near powerful enough to beat Voldemort, and I think we all agree with that. It will take him another few years, and book7!Harry will beat Vodemort consciously, but until then he hasn't a chance (I still would like to know how Dumbledore plans to prepare Harry by book seven, though. I dislike metathinking and "Harry is going to beat Voldemort in book seven" is putre, unabridged, unadultered metathinking in all it's glory). What's the situation, then? Voldemort has given Harry time to escape, hoping that he won't have to face him this soon. After all, he cannot simply liberate him with all the "valuable" information he has overheard, or Dumbledore wouldn't believe a word of it. And since he's already there, he'll definetely try to kill him, but Voldemort probably knows that he's going to need quite a bit of his strenght to kill Harry. So maybe, he was resting up after being reborn. Getting used to his new body, and that. And of course, feeding him false information just in caser he escapes *once again* (after all, Harry has faced twice Voldemort now, when he was younger and less powerful, and he managed to escape both times. Why should this one be any different?). Voldemort can hope he'll kill the brat, but he's not going to suffer if he escapes again. It doesn't loom to big. After all, his real eney is Dumbledore, and last time, it was easy to beat him. If Harry grows to be another Dumbledore, it still won't be enough to stop him from taking over the WW once again. The once thing I really don't believe is that Voldemort needs to dmonstrate anything in the graveyard to his DE. They already know he's not infalible: they know he won't face Dumbledore. And no-one believes that Harry is as powerful as Dumbledore. Killing the boy would be a great treat at the end of a succesful evening, but if he survives, it still furthers thir plan: an information war is fought (and won) by missinforming the enemy at the same time you learn what they really are thinking, and Voldemort knows this. After all, he managed to put the entire WW on it's knees last time. Harry, as I've said before, is an important chess piece, but he's not the king, and if he's killed Dumbledore's side would be debilitated, but not destroyed. Infact, one of Harry's great victories is already in place: the flawed potion that has made Voldemort mortal again. While Harry can still be used (ther's still that life-debt in place, and his amazing rough powers), Dumbledore ould and probably would work around his death. Please note that that doesn't mean the he wants Harry dead (as one liestee understood last time I mentioned this theory), only that Harry's well-being isn't the angular stone of his strategy. > And why would Fawkes only donate two tail feathers to the wand making > cause? I want to point out that when they speak of "Phoenix feathers", they're probably not speaking of your everyday, wing's feather, but of a long, beautiful feather that phoenix generally have in their tail. This are traditionally non-regenerative. Thus, if a phoenix looses one of them, they do not grow it back. Those where the most powerful part of the phoenix body, too, although right now I cannot tell you what porperties those feathers were supposed to have (pheonix legends are not my strenght). I seem to recall that phenix normally have three, but I'm nowhere sure about it, and fawkes could simply be a rarity. > I think this is part of Dumbledore's master plan to vanquish > Voldemort, and is why he needs Harry. I think Dumbledore was > planning on a final Harry-Voldemort showdown when Harry comes of age > in which their wands wouldn't be able to work properly against one > another because of the priori incantetem effect. Then Harry would be > able to use his then-fully developed wandless magic (going back to > that JKR interview - perhaps through his eyes?) to finish Voldemort > off (IMO, Harry's internal powers have *not* yet been developed to > the point where he can channel and use them in a controlled way > without a wand. But he's getting there!). > > But due to the graveyard duel, Voldemort now knows that his wand > isn't effective against Harry's wand (Dumbledore and Ollivander were > the only ones who knew this previously). So will Voldemort now get a > different wand? Since the wand that chooses you is the one that you > can use the most effectively, will his substitute wand not work as > well? Or has Dumbledore's master plan been completely thrown off > course? > > ~Phyllis > waiting for Grey Wolf to pick this apart Me? Pick it appart? You do realize, Phyllis, that this is in accordance of Safe House tennets and strictly compatible with MAGIC DISHWASHER, do you? You've used the key phrases, to quote: "part of Dumbledore's master plan to vanquish Voldemort" and "Dumbledore and Ollivander were the only ones who knew this previously". Once you start understanding that Dumbledore and Voldemort are carefully making plans and keeping information from each other, you're fully in MAGIC DISHWASHER gear. In fact, I love the idea. One of the main points of MAGIC DISHWASHER is that they both have "B" plans, since they realise that their "A" plans will sooner or later have a bad encounter with reality and fail. Snape was knocked out. Priori incantatem happened. etc. Now you're sugesting that the priori incantatem effect was one of the cards up Dumbledore's sleeve for the final conflict, and I find it a great idea, although I do have a suggestion: it was just a further protection for Harry, a one-use save-life for him: the first time Harry and Voldemort dueled, Harry would be saved by it. However, I do accept that Dumbledore didn't expect it to happen until further on, or else he would have told Harry what to expect (Dumbledore *did not* expect the Portkey!Cup twist). I doubt, however, that Dumbledore relies on *anything* exclusively. He won't be thwarted by having to have used the priori incantatum so soon. No-one wins *all* the battles, and I'd imagine that Harry's survival of the graveyard is a good silver lining in the black cloud of having lost that particular card. That was the reason it was there, after all. At any rate it cannot be the *main* plan, because Dumbledore must have devised the main plan long before Harry got hold of his wand. Where does that take us? I'd say that Voldemort would have to change wands now, but it could be that he informs himself about the priori incantatum, and decide that it's worth the risk, since he should believe that his will is strong enough to force Harry's wand into spewing old spells' images next time. If he doesn't believe it, he'll just have to use another wand, which would certainly debilitate him, since (even if, like in my case, you don't believe in choosy wands, but only in wands suited and unsuited) it wouldn't be tuned to his powers and capabilities as the old one. At any rate, even though it's not as good as Voldemort finding himself wandless in the final showdown, it's a good situation nonetheless. Hope that helps, Grey Wolf, who will add Phyllis' idea to MAGIC DISHWASHER, and would like to know if she wants to join, since she's already substantially added to it. From dicentra at xmission.com Fri Aug 23 23:03:04 2002 From: dicentra at xmission.com (dicentra63) Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 23:03:04 -0000 Subject: Who Framed Fred and George? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43083 Comedy is a funny thing (funny strange and funny ha ha). It's strange, because one type of comedy relies on something called Danger Averted. With Danger Averted, you have a situation in which something bad, painful, disastrous, or harmful could happen, but then at the last minute it doesn't. Or it does happen, but Nobody Gets Hurt. You toss baby into the air and she shrieks with laughter because the sensation of being thrown and falling through the air causes one part of her brain to register "Danger!" but she knows daddy will catch her--that there really is no danger--so she laughs. My favorite amusement-park ride takes you up to the top of a tower, higher than the ferris wheel. You're in one of those harnesses. Then without warning it blasts you downward. Even though you know it's coming, you involuntarily scream because your brain is telling you that you're about to die. But before you get to the bottom, hydraulics bounce you gently upwards a few times, then you are let down easily. It's that combination of a primitive reaction to falling and the knowledge that I'm really safe that constitutes the fun. Practical jokes also fall into the Danger Averted category. If you are startled by a loud noise or unexpected sight, you get the adrenaline rush that comes from your brain's "Danger" warning, but because there really isn't any danger, you end up laughing. That is, unless you actually get hurt. Then it's not funny anymore, not for you, and, unless you're dealing with sociopaths, not for the jokers. Slapstick falls into that same category. People fall but they don't get hurt. You get smacked in the face, but it's just a harmless pie. Cartoons represent the ultimate in Danger Averted comedy: you can do anything to a Toon, and Nobody Gets Hurt. Ever. Then you have "Who Framed Roger Rabbit?" which deals with Danger Averted comedy. You drop an anvil on Roger Rabbit's head, and a big bump lifts the anvil a foot off his head. He shakes it off; no harm done. But if you drop that same anvil on Eddie Valiant's head, he dies of massive head trauma. Anvil On Roger Rabbit is funny; Anvil On Eddie is not. The difference is in whether the danger is averted. "Who Framed Roger Rabbit?" is an unusual movie because the real world and the cartoon world occupy the same space. You can do things to Roger that you would never do to Eddie Valiant simply because they would be affected different ways. It occurs to me while reading this latest Fred And George Are Bullies thread that the HP series is in many ways the same: some of the characters are flesh and blood and some are Toons. When something happens to one character it's funny because that character isn't hurt. Something else happens to another character and it's tragic because the danger was never averted. People have asserted that Fred and George aren't the most well-developed characters in the series, and I concur. I think they must be Toons. They function as Toons. They do things because they're funny, and for no other reason. The Dursleys are also Toons, as are Draco and his buddies. (I remember an excellent post by Elkins in which she expresses her disappointment in Draco as Harry's nemesis for the simple fact that Draco is two-dimensional.) As Toons, they Don't Get Hurt. They're merely props for JKR's own brand of physical humor. This is, after all, a woman whose favorite TV show is "The Simpsons." Most of the jokes on that show are Danger Averted jokes; that is, if what happened on "The Simpsons" happened in real life it would be genuinely tragic, but because it's not real and no one gets hurt, it's a scream. Let's look at some of this Toon humor: Five Hexes and Stepping Upon Draco and Co. get hexed from five directions and get stepped on. Then the twins, Harry, and Ron "kicked, rolled, and pushed" them into the corridor. Is there potential danger? Yes. Was it averted? Well, we don't know for sure, but what's going to happen when they wake up and find themselves covered with tentacles or that they have jelly legs? They'll get upset, someone will muster a countercurse, and they'll be fine. It's like Daffy Duck putting his beak back on when it gets blasted onto the back of his head in "Wabbit Season/Duck Season." He's irritated, but no harm done, so it's funny. Do you really think JKR let the Trio and Twins cause real damage to Draco et al.? Really? I see no indication that she did. Danger Averted. Quirrell and the Snowballs I have yet to see an in-depth discussion on this board of why Quirrell defected to the dark side, or about his past, or whether he was kissing Florence behind the greenhouses. I think it's safe to say that he's a Toon. I mean, the nervousness, the silly turban... he's a caricature. Is there a danger of his being hurt by the snowballs? Yes, but only if he is a real person and not a Toon. (As Elkins pointed out, he's on the verge of a nervous breakdown continually, but his nervousness isn't real, because he's a Toon.) Is that danger averted? It appears to be. JKR doesn't indicate that the snowballs aggravated his condition or that they did anything beyond perplex him. Of course, we now know that Voldemort was under the turban, so really it was Voldemort getting hit in the face. Did he vow revenge on the Twins? No, the incident is mentioned once and dropped. Danger Averted. Ton-Tongue Toffee Dudley, the Toon whose primary characteristic is gluttony and being a spoiled brat. He's not three-dimensional either, despite his rotund body. Give him a pig's tail, he's terribly upset by it, but he goes to the hospital and has it removed. No harm done. No, really. We don't have an account of Dudley's psychology being affected by the incident beyond being skittish around wizards. He doesn't grow from it, or gain new insight, or spend weeks in a deep dark depression, or become a different person because of it. He's a Toon. And then scarfing up the TTToffee like the glutton he is makes his tongue swell, and it scares him, but he's not in any real danger. His mother goes apoplectic with panic and his father throws a vase at Arthur Weasley. This is not Dudley Is Going To Die From Suffocation And Arthur Weasley Saves The Day. No, it's just a prank. In fact, Harry says he hesitates to get into the fireplace because he doesn't want to miss the fun. Unless JKR is a sadist, this is Toon humor--no one gets hurt. Danger Averted. Canary Cremes Again, these little pranks never put anyone in any kind of danger, and the imagery is very cartoonish. JKR introduces it with "Just then, Neville caused a slight diversion by turning into a large canary," a cue that this is actually funny (read: not harmful). Danger Averted. And there are more examples, but I'll move on. The point is that those who are aghast at the Twins' behavior are reading them as if they were real people instead of Toons, thinking that if the Twins did something like that to them or their kids, they would be calling Molly and giving her a piece of their minds. Granted, if many of these incidents happened in real life, they *would* be painful and tragic and harmful. But you can't hurt Dudley or Draco or Quirrell because they're Toons. Things don't affect them the same way they affect other characters. If you bounced snowballs off Lupin's head, he wouldn't give you the satisfaction of a laugh: he'd either blast them with his wand or send them back to torment YOU, for example. And it's worthy of note that the Twins' inner circle, those whom they don't pick on, are primarily three-dimensional characters, while those at the periphery are Toons. On the other hand, there *is* real tragedy in the series--kill off the Potters and Harry ends up an orphan and their absence affects him deeply. Sirius ends up in Azkaban, guilt-ridden and barely able to hang onto his sanity. He bears the marks of his captivity. Lupin is going gray at a young age from the stress of being a werewolf. Crouch Sr. pays for his mistakes with his life. Crouch Jr. loses his soul. None of this is funny because the danger is not averted; real damage is done. So you see, I'm not arguing that "it's OK because it's just a story." I'm arguing that it's OK because the story is populated with two kinds of characters, Toons and people, and the story itself is defining who's who. You don't laugh when the people get hurt because they actually get hurt. You do laugh at the Toons. I think that reading HP without taking into account that some characters are Toons ends up distorting the story. For one thing, you don't enjoy the jokes. For another, it adds dimension to characters where none exists--mostly negative dimensions--so you don't enjoy the characters. And last, it gives rise to heated discussions like these between people who see the Toons as Toons and people who interpret them as real. It's hard to find common ground in that case. --Dicentra, who wishes Heather Happy Birthday From vincentjh at yahoo.com Fri Aug 23 18:03:15 2002 From: vincentjh at yahoo.com (vincentjh) Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 18:03:15 -0000 Subject: Fred and George: The Bullies You Do Know In-Reply-To: <20020823150059.5488.qmail@web20908.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43084 Hi, I've been a lurker on this board for a while and had just re-joined the group after half a month's absence. After reading so many messages suggesting the twins are a) potentially evil or b) mean, I felt like to defend them. > Abigail said: > > > I honestly believe that in most of these cases, > > JKR's reasoning doesn't go > > any further than "this is funny." This is something > > of a disservice to the > > characters, making them the purveyors of cheap > > laughs and nothing more, and "Nicole L." wrote > JKR often has a playful tone to her writing and I think > that this is reflected in Fred and George. In the > context of childhood, I can see how these two are > hilarious. As a bunch of adults looking at them, we > may see their behavior as immature and mean but I > don't think children read them the same way. > > I think it is important to > remember that these are children's novels telling the > story from the point of view of a child. Naturally as > adults we will make our own interpretations and draw > our own conclusions but perhaps we are missing > something when we do this. I agree that sometimes we might take F&G too seriously and miss out on JKR's humor. It's important to read the characters in HP's context. This is a world where kids learn to grind dead spiders to make potions, where a not-so-well-excuted spell could accidentally make a person blurp slugs, and where people could get serious injuries in our muggle standard but recover in one night! Apparently, wizards and witches are much stronger (and perhaps less sensitive) than us muggles and their definition of "animal crulety" or simply "cruelty" is very different from ours. In fact, some people might even read HP's as a violent world that merrits an R rating. But then, this "cruelty" is part of HP's charm, part of its uninhibited (and occasionally dark) imagination. It's for a good laugh and for setting up the tone of a different universe. And I am sure kids would have a lot of fun reading about those wicked little wizards and witches who do not have to comform to our rules. I do not find F&G particularly crule in their treatments to animals or their physically "harming" people (such as turing Neville into a...what bird was that?), because these things probably won't hurt a wizard or a magical creature. What they did to Dudley might be disturbing. But let's not forget that JKR has never been kind to the Dursleys. Dudley has been (in his imagination) nearly attacked by a snake and has grown a pig tail, and Aunt Marge was turned into a human balloon. I'd like to think it's nothing more than another joke JKR played on Dudley. One thing that all the Weasley kids have in common is they are loyal and protective to their friends and families. Even Ginny the little sister stood up for Harry in her first encounter with Draco. Percy bullied Ginny into taking cold medicine and chid F&G for trying to cheer her up in the wrong way. He offered Harry advices in what classes to take in his 3rd year and has been kind to him since 1st year even though Harry didn't always recognise or appreciate it. Ron...Need to say anything about him? He'd fight anyone for his friends, families, and classmates. F&G are from the same family that raised these kids to always look after each other and offer people their support. Much like Ron, they taught Harry numerous things about the magic world and always treated him like a normal kid, making things easy for him even when times were hard. They defended their teammates. They made fun of Percy but also insisted that he had to sit with them on Christmas and did not try to embarrass him in important occasions and ruin his life or career. (If they didn't care for Percy, I doubt they'd ever find so many things to tease him.) These are two teenage boys that may never admit they can be warm and sensitive. But time and time again, they have shown their caring side to Harry and their families/friends/teammates. And I, for one, found it difficult to see them as bullies or potential dark wizards. > > Look at Cedric > > - he's older than the twins, > > he's handsome, smart, popular, good with the girls, > > a great Quidditch player, > > and on top of all that he's nice, modest and > > friendly. How could they not > > hate him? Can you honestly tell me that you've > > never met a person like that > > and just hated them? Am I the only one who feels that Cedric is a little too perfect? Maybe JKR deliberatedly made him that way so that the readers would feel sad (adn angered) when he was killed off. But I found him one of the most inconvincible characters in the book(s). VJH From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Fri Aug 23 23:09:31 2002 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (bboy_mn) Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 23:09:31 -0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Harry's Astrological Chart In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43085 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Gail Bohacek" wrote: Gail Bohacek: > Hi there! > > This is a very basic, basic, basic outline of Harry's chart which > I cast simply for my amusement and curiosity. I share it with you > here for exactly the same reasons. A good astrologer would be able > to give more information...I am not a good astrologer. I daresay > not even a mediocre one. If there are people out there who can > add more detail, they are more than welcome to their input. > > ...SNIP... I'm probably pushin my luck here in terms of what I am allowed to post, but if you would like to see Harry's or anyone elses Astrolgy chard with a full but very basic interpretation, here is a link to a place that will give you an on line chart for FREE. OK, nothing is really for Free. This place selling a software package for Astrology, and they are hoping that you will like the free on-line chart so much that you will download the trial version of their software and eventually buy it. But the on-line version really is free with no strings. Presumably with the trial software package, you can do chart for 30 days before the program shuts down. I have NO association with this company and I could care less if you buy their software. Just thought it might be fun. One problem is entering the city, just enter the first 3 or 4 letter of the city you want, and a list will pop-up that you can pick the actual city from. I used birth time 12:00/noon and the city of Cardiff (Wales), UK. http://astro-software.com/cgi-bin/astro/natal I know this isn't totally on topic, but I thought people might be interested in that Astro-charts of their favorite characters. I'm going to do Ron's next. Sorry if I'm out of line. bboy_mn From rvotaw at i-55.com Sat Aug 24 00:19:25 2002 From: rvotaw at i-55.com (Richelle Votaw) Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 19:19:25 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Powerful Harry/ Gryffindor heir/ Fred and George/ Parents' attitude/ References: Message-ID: <015a01c24b03$e7b6d7e0$649ecdd1@istu757> No: HPFGUIDX 43086 Okay, lots of "stuff" buried down in here, just keep going, everything in the subject line is in here somewhere. :) Phyllis writes: > So I think if Voldemort truly thought that Harry was more powerful > without a wand, he would have killed him immediately upon his arrival > in the graveyard (probably by slitting his throat so he could get > Harry's blood for the regeneration potion by force - oh, perish the > thought!). I write: Well, besides the fact that it is technically a children's book, and the middle book in a seven book series, there are a couple of things keeping Voldemort from slitting Harry's throat. One being Voldemort *wants* to kill Harry with the same spell he tried the first time--Avada Kedavra. It's the only way he will truly prove to himself as much as to his followers that he *can* defeat Harry Potter. Second, for Voldemort to resort to a Muggle murder weapon would be shaming himself as a wizard. A couple of other comments about Harry's magical abilities without a wand. I don't think he's ever thought about it. It's possible these skills (probably doing magic with his eyes) can be refined, but right now that doesn't seem to be an issue. Ah, that's where McGonagall will come in--she'll teach Harry to use his eyes to defeat Voldemort. Okay, so that's totally off the wall, but as I keep saying, I want her to do something really good. :) Second, Voldemort probably doesn't know for certain that Harry would be more powerful without his wand, but he knows he can't have much duel training, so it's safer to limit his possibilities. Phyllis again: > I *don't* think Dumbledore is a descendant of > Gryffindor, however, because I believe Harry is a descendant of > Gryffindor (as I elaborated in a previous post which explored > parallels between St. Godric and Harry) and I don't think Dumbledore > would have left him with those horrible Dursleys if Harry was a > relative (plus Dumbledore says in SS/PS that the Dursleys are the > only family Harry has left). Technically speaking couldn't both Harry and Dumbledore be descended from Gryffindor yet so far apart that they are not a close enough relation to count as "family?" It all depends on the connotation of the word "family." After all, Dumbledore is a good 135+ years older than Harry. Say Gryffindor had two kids. A and B for convenience sake. If Dumbledore traced his roots back to A and Harry to B wouldn't they both be descendents of Gryffindor, yet not closely related? > Jenny: > > > I don't dislike the twins as much as Elkins does (I'm not betraying > > you, Elkins!), but they have done things that we wouldn't excuse > from someone else. Me again: Well, my opinion on Fred and George may not amount to much, but I just find them down right likeable. They're rude to people, sure. But they usually deserve it! They're mean sometimes. Often even. But 9 times out of 10 they're mischeviousness is aimed at something we'd really like to see happen anyway. I can't stand Dudley, so I loved the ton tongue toffee thing. Draco deserves anything he gets, especially after the GoF comments (End of year banquet, train). One thing about the twins is they really do stick up for Harry. They seem to know Harry won't go as far as they will with some stunts, or can't in the case of Dudley, so they do it for him. It's just that comment in CoS that really gets me every time: "They were starving him, Mum!" said George. They really were looking out for Harry, even without permission (but when do they wait for permission to do anything?). However, I am a strong believer that their mischeviousness will at some point go too far and get one of them killed. I think not both, though, just one. > Alina wrote- > > > That reminds me of something my mom said. She hasn't read the > books, but watched the movie with the rest of the family when I got > my DVD and here was her reaction to it: "It might be very exciting > for kids, but a parent can'twatch this calmly." Me yet again: That reminds me of something my mother said. She's seen the movie, but not read the books (though she's heard a bit more than she cares to from my ramblings). Therefore her canon *is* the movie. Anyway, I was theorizing aloud about the meanings of a "delicate" Harry, and she jumped in. She thought it was quite apparent that he *was* delicate, he was pale after all, and the Dursleys were so mean to him and didn't feed him right and kept him locked up and on and on. Very well, though couldn't that mean Daniel Radcliffe was pale and not Harry Potter? :) Anyhow, I think this is the general reaction fromparents, they tend to worry about Harry rather than get into the plot. Richelle From saitaina at wizzards.net Sat Aug 24 00:36:57 2002 From: saitaina at wizzards.net (Saitaina) Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 17:36:57 -0700 Subject: Racist! Draco (was Fred and George: The bullies you know) References: Message-ID: <006b01c24b06$5b077ea0$934e28d1@oemcomputer> No: HPFGUIDX 43087 Darrian wrote: <3) Draco is racist. I cannot put in any plainer than that. To apologize for Draco is to apologize for a stone-cold racist. Therefore, to credibly compare anyone to Draco is to necessarily prove that person or persons is also racist. Fred and George are not. They do not tinge their humor at anyone group in particular.> Okay,first of, I have seen NO cannon that points to Draco being a racist. YES he strikes out against those different then him and some could classify Hagrid as being the target of such but you do need a different RACE to be a racist. Mudbloods (or muggle-borns for those who prefer) are not a different race, their a genetic miracle. While the words could have the same...feeling of certain words I will not say here out of respect of the list, it's not a racial remark. Mudbloods are still humans, still wizzards, still of the same race. I have grown up with two grandparents and several uncles who are racists, while some actions Draco takes may appear similar, if you look beneath the surface you will find very different motivations for actions. Draco strikes out against that which he fears like most humans do. He fears that something that should be below him (elitism not racism by the way is shown here)is doing better then he is. Hermione AND Hagrid fall into this category. Hermione is top witch, the best of the scholarly best, and she is a mudblood. In Draco's mind that shouldn't be possible, shouldn't happen. It also pisses off Lucius and frankly, Lucius doesn't seem the type of father you should piss off. So why not strike out against a mere girl who does things she shouldn't. In his mind, she needs to be reminded of her place in wizzarding society. This is elitism at it's worst, not racism. Hagrid is a nothing that became an authority over Draco. While some racism comes into call here, (not only for Draco but for Ron and other pure-bloods) it's more of a nothing, a peasant gaining a position of power that irks Draco. Raised in a family where power is everything I can see this as a blow to his ego. Also, he fears Hagrid. He may not have known Hagrid was in fact, a half-giant (he mentions this in GoF), but Draco is a child, and for a child, having the very tall, very scary, mountain man looking Hagrid around is frightening. We all know that Hagrid wouldn't hurt him but Draco doesn't. Darrian then wrote: Cannon does NOT show his racism. It shows his elitism and the fact that he's not creative enough to come up with his own insults. Mudblood may be up there with n- but that doesn't justify Mudbloods as their own race, which they're not. They're still British (or what have you) wizzards who happen to have won the genetic lottery. If he called Dean a certain word or called Seamus the Irish equivalent then that would be racism, but mudblood, nice insult but not quite up there yet. The hatred of that word stems not from it being the insult of n- proportions but because I'm quite sure Mr. Half-Blood himself, Voldemort used it quite often and that gave it it's history. I have been called quite a few words I would consider horrible things to say yet they weren't racist remarks. Just because a word ignites such anger in others doesn't mean it's racist. Darrian THEN wrote: You could do that, you could also delve into the world of homophobia and say fags and fag-lovers. You could transfer many words into those two and ignite the same anger and same hatred. That just proves he had no imagination and really doesn't like Hermione. Doesn't prove he's a racist. I've had people say I shouldn't be allowed in polite society because I'm fat. I've had people actually threaten to shove explosive devices up certain private areas and press the detonator for the same reason (they also claimed it was because I was a witch but I really think they just didn't like the fat girl). Being a witch and being fat are not race traits, yet I get death threats and beat up and insults called at me...does that make those who attack me racists, no, that makes them morons. People, children especially will strike out at those they don't understand. Draco is a classic example of this. Remember, these are my opinions, these are what I see in the books, which makes it neither right, nor wrong but just what I see. Feel free to pick apart my post, but please, come up with something more then just what we see on the surface. Humans are made up of much more then the face we show in public, even Draco. Saitaina **** Gandalf dead. Everyone morose. In attempt to cheer up Fellowship, Legolas took off all his clothes and performed scenes from Silmarillion: The Musical. Everyone still morose. Legolas ponced off to have 3,000-year-old elf prince sulk. -Peregrine Took's Very Secret Diary Oh hell, someone wake me when my happy ending starts... I wouldn't want to miss the flying pigs and ice skating demons. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Sat Aug 24 00:44:36 2002 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (bboy_mn) Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2002 00:44:36 -0000 Subject: Magic: Foc/unFoc; Ctrl/unCtrl; Wand/NoWand; Spont/Intent Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43088 The subject of Focused vs. Unfocused magic has been recently debated at length. But I submit that most people are looking at it through a very tiny window. We have several factors that come into play, and with any given act of magic, they must ALL be taken into account. Magical Implimentation Factors: Focused vs Unfocused which is related to but not necessarily the sames as Wand vs Wandless Controlled vs Uncontrolled which is related to but not the same as Spontaneous vs Intentional You could have Wand magic that is Unfocused and Spontaneous but controllable/containable/or bounded by some restrained limits. I would say most examples of Harry's 'unfocused' magic are really- wandless, unfocused, spontaneous, and uncontrolled/uncontrollable. He is not using a wand. The magic, to some extent, is unfocused, because of the lack of a focusing device like a wand. Unfocused to the extent that it has no clear purpose or intent. He could just as easily have blown up the refirgerator as blown up Aunt Marge. Although, without a doubt, the focus of his anger was Marge, that was not necessarily the intended focus of his magic. Spontaneous in the sense that it was self-initiating. It was initiated by the force of his emotions, and not by concious desire or intent. It was uncontrollable in the sense that he had no control and in the sense, that it was without limits. Again, this relates to intent. Neville, as an illustration, could initiate some spontaneous magic trigger by events or emotion, but at the same time conciously not intend to harm anyone. That would make it spontaneous, but to some extent controlled; bounded by intended limits. Now, in general- There a lots of examples of simple straight forward magic that is initiated or implimented without a wand. That's a given. Unfocused without a wand- If a wizard doesn't have a wand, or if he does, and he's not using it. It is unfocus in the sense that he is not concetrated on a specific act, or a specific destination. It's the difference between a random curse that sweeps over an entire crowd and attacks all indiscriminantly, and a specific intended curse that is focused on a single person in a crowd. And it is unfocused, in the sense that he is using no device, wand or other, as a device to concentrate and direct the magic. Unfocused internally and externally. Spontaneous, again, is magic that self-initiates with no concoius intent or desire on the part of the magician/wizard/sorcerer. Uncontrolled or unbounded or unlimited by the wizard. Harry action against Aunt Marge was uncontrolled in that it had no known or controllable limits. Aunt Marge could have continued to inflate until she litterally exploded. I suspect when people physically explode into a thousand pieces, it's next to impossible for that magic to be undone. It is only my shear random chance that Aunt Marge stopped inflating; that, or the early arrivable of the Accidental Magic Squad. First, all of these overlap, in any given instance of magic any combination and degree of these things can occur. Second, what is the one word that is peppered through everything above; it's 'intent'. Someone asked why Harry didn't do something while Big_V had him tied up in the graveyard. It's because this is not magic that Harry controls. It self-initiates; it's spontaneous and out of his control. It's dictated by circumstances, and is not predictable to any given circumstances. Is it powerful? OH YES! It has the full force of all of Harry's untapped magical potential. In a sense, it acts at a primal, instinctual, survival level. When it is unleases, it is uncontrollable and unpredictable, and has no concious barriers between that massive force of magic and where it is being directed. Is it powerful, more powerful than Harry himself? OH YES! YES, INDEED! It is like Hoover Dam suddenly disintigrateing and unleashing it's massive wall of previously restrained water, or in Harry's case, previously restrained wall of magic. Let's try to view the world through a picture window, and not a peep hole. Just some thoughts. bboy_mn From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Sat Aug 24 01:18:45 2002 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (bboy_mn) Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2002 01:18:45 -0000 Subject: WANDS: Harry's vs Voldemort: Let's get this straight. Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43089 Maybe I'm just reacting to a figure of speak, or to a context that I don't recognise, but soooooo may people speak as if the Big_V/Little_H brother wands mean that Harry and Voldemort can't fight or harm each other. NOT TRUE! We have already seen Big_V put Harry under the Cruciatus curse, and without a doubt, if Harry hadn't reacted to the AK curse, he would be dead now. Kill by the 'brother wand' of Voldmort. This unique effect, of which, the prior incantatum is merely a side effect, only occurs when they throw SIMULTANEIOUS CURSES. Note, earlier in the story, Harry and Draco throw simultaneous curse and the curse hit in mid-air and are deflected off of each other. So there is always an unusual affect when simultanious curses are thrown against each other. Once again, the brother want effect, which in turn produces the separate prior incantatum effect, only occurs when 'brother wands' throw simultanious curse against each other. That's my story and I'm sticking to it. bboy_mn From Malady579 at hotmail.com Sat Aug 24 01:05:39 2002 From: Malady579 at hotmail.com (malady579) Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2002 01:05:39 -0000 Subject: Who Framed Fred and George? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43090 Dicentra wrote: >> People have asserted that Fred and George aren't the most well-developed characters in the series, and I concur. I think they must be Toons. They function as Toons. They do things because they're funny, and for no other reason. The Dursleys are also Toons, as are Draco and his buddies. (I remember an excellent post by Elkins in which she expresses her disappointment in Draco as Harry's nemesis for the simple fact that Draco is two-dimensional.) As Toons, they Don't Get Hurt. They're merely props for JKR's own brand of physical humor. This is, after all, a woman whose favorite TV show is "The Simpsons." Most of the jokes on that show are Danger Averted jokes; that is, if what happened on "The Simpsons" happened in real life it would be genuinely tragic, but because it's not real and no one gets hurt, it's a scream. << Me: First, I must say that I love the way you argued the case for secondary "toon" characters. No author, no matter how brilliant, can fully develop over 200 characters over a series of seven books. Some must be atmosphere characters. The only problem I find with this is that JKR loves to throw wrenches into common accepted rules of plotlines. Hence we get Black and Figg mentioned in PS/SS yet are so improtant in the plot, Scabbers perceived as innocent pet till PoA, even Bill and Charlie have roles that are growing in more important by each book beyond giving the Weasley's reasons to travel and be multicultural. This creates paranoia with the reader base in try to guess the writer's next move and thus you get this yahoo group picking apart the few words written on names mentions maybe in passing...don't know...must figure this puzzle out...must be the informed Potter reader. (AS Arthur would say, "bless us") I guess I cannot see Fred and George as "toon" characters because you do not give sixteen year old prank-prone wizards a 1000 galleons and expect them to just be good for comic relief. ...Oh all is so bad, DE's torturing everyone, of wait Fletcher just turned into a canary how funny ha ha ha... Please. Melody Hopeing the twins actually buy Ron a good set of dress robes and not ones that are jinxed to shrinkwrap him everytime a girl comes around. :) From francienyc at yahoo.com Sat Aug 24 01:53:14 2002 From: francienyc at yahoo.com (francienyc) Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2002 01:53:14 -0000 Subject: Fred and George: The Bullies You Do Know In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43091 So, so much to say on this topic. I found Elkins' earlier argument and Darrin's the most compelling, so I've quoted their talking points here. First, though, let me put forth my general theory on the twins. Basically, it boils down to this: they're trying to be funny. When things are going to pieces, they still find something to smile about. They give those who take situations and sometimes themselves too seriously a little reality check. Witness their antics during CoS, when they clear a path for Harry in the halls by announcing him as the Heir of Slytherin, or their teasing of Percy. Elkins wrote: "Yup. Percy and Malfoy were begging for it, all right. Much in the same way that Snape was just *pleading* to be fed to a werewolf, by virtue of being so nasty and sneaky, and of having oily hair." Percy is begging for it. He builds himself up to such a degree that we want to see him fall?it's one of Aristotle's theories on humor. We laugh when we see someone taken down a notch. Percy's just too self-important. He thinks he can boss everyone around because he's Head Boy: take, for example, when he orders everyone to be quiet during the campout in the Great Hall in PoA. Similarly, Percy becomes extremely condescending as Head Boy. When Ron sees Black at his bedside in PoA, Percy tells McGonagall that Ron was "just dreaming." Ugh! I believe Percy's a good guy underneath, but that attitude's got to go, and that's where Fred and George come in. I'd also like to add that Fred and George's treatment of Percy deserves special consideration because they're brothers. Siblings torture and annoy each other, they can say almost anything to each other. My sister has spent most of her life torturing me in a manner not too different from Fred and George, but I know that deep down she loves and respects me. I think that's evident with the Weasleys' relationship as well. Fred and George never hex Percy or are outright cruel to him, they just tease him. Similarly, Malfoy's pompousness makes us all want to give him a good, hard smack like Hermione does. He thinks he's a big cheese because he comes from an old, rich wizarding family, but we know that alone doesn't deserve respect. Malfoy actually goes to great lengths to hurt people and make them feel pain. It's despicable. Fred and George contribute to taking the edge off his attitude. Notice I say "contribute" because they're not the only ones. What about Harry throwing mud at Malfoy, Crabbe, and Goyle in front of the Shrieking Shack in PoA? Is Harry now a bully too? The thing is, Fred and George's more malicious sides only come out when they're provoked. As for the canary creams?lighten up people! Neville wasn't hurt, and even he laughed. Neville's great, because he knows how to laugh at himself, and for that I think the twins must at least appreciate him, since they have learned that skill themselves. Now, I won't say that they're angels?far from it. They're mischievous, devilish pranksters and they can definitely go too far, especially when their actions are "retributive." A perfect example is the Quidditch Championship in PoA (sorry for all the PoA references, but it's my favorite and I'm right in the middle of it for the umpteenth time). The twins don't start attacking the Slytherin team, but they do bite back. Is that right? No but they're the friends that dare to do the things you wouldn't, and through their rashness you experience a kind of catharsis. Incidentally, I think the Ton Tongue Toffee incident falls under this category. However, I felt that they went too far here. The Ton Tongue Toffee is a little too dangerous and terrifying for my taste to be funny. However, Dudley is not a good natured boy with a thyroid problem. His weight is the result of his own greed. Besides, he remembered well his first encounter with the wizarding world, yet he forgot that in favor of gluttony. Elkins wrote: "See, this particular logic really hits all of my hot buttons, because in my experience, it's the logic that bullies *always* use to justify their actions. "If he weren't so snotty, we wouldn't have been forced to shove him in the locker." "She was really asking for it, the way she always dressed so badly and never stood up for herself." " To a certain degree, that's a very good argument. It is true that if we use it to defend the twins it can grow to defend others who don't deserve defending. However, I feel I can use it here because first of all, my whole point is that Fred and George are trying to be funny, and theories on humor state that people see the downfall or humiliation of a character as funny, so long as we don't empathize with them. And I definitely don't empathize with Malfoy. Also, the things that Fred and George do are never out and out horrible. They don't want to bring pain, but laughter. I will certainly grant that they're not always successful, and I'll be the first to admit that making theories about humor is difficult because different people find different things funny. > > > Darrin: > > > > > To compare Fred and George being cold to Cedric in a small group > > >to Draco's actions is unconscionable. > > > > I beg your pardon? > > > > "Unconscionable" means "Not restrained by conscience; unscrupulous; > > beyond prudence or reason; excessive." Surely we can disagree > about a few scenes in a book series without anyone calling anyone > else's > > scruples into question. > > > > > My language was carefully chosen there. I sincerely believe that > there is such bending and twisting to somehow attach the same level > of severity to the actions of Gryffindors, any Gryffindors, as to > Slytherins, that crucial elements -- such as the racism behind > Draco's actions -- are being ignored. To do that is to place the goal > of the argument above the substance of the material you are arguing, > which I find beyond prudence and reason and excessive. Bravo, Darrin! Though the twins toe the line an awful lot, they're never seeking pain. They're seeking laughter. Draco, on the other hand, wants to hurt people. He's glad that Hagrid's so miserable about Buckbeak's execution (man, I really am laying it on thick with PoA). What's more, he judges people based on outward appearances. He's a bigot. There are few things I hate more than racism and elitism, and a comparison between something as vile as that and some misguided fun is unconscionable. Okay, I think I'm done for now. Hats off to you if you got to this point in my post. J ~Francie From francienyc at yahoo.com Sat Aug 24 02:09:54 2002 From: francienyc at yahoo.com (francienyc) Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2002 02:09:54 -0000 Subject: One-Dimensional Dursleys Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43092 It's struck me that in a series of books filled with highly complex charicters, the Dursleys are extremely one-dimensional characters. Uncle Vernon is a bully in every sense of the term, preying on the weak and building himself up; Aunt Petunia is nothing but a gossip and a busybody; Dudley is a glutton. Does anyone have any theories on why this is? Is it because they're the only Muggles who are main characters and are thus made banal in comparison with the multi- faceted wizarding world? This could work, because the only prominent Muggles we see have a very strong desire to remain Muggles--could this say something about the wizard in all of us, or is that too pithy? However, Lucius Malfoy is definitely one dimensional, so I don't know how well that idea works. To propose a theory myself, I think the Dursleys could be allegorical for some of the seven deadly sins, which are Envy, Sloth, Wrath, Gluttony, Pride, Lust, and Greed. Well, Dudley definitely fits the gluttony aspect, and Vernon is certainly Wrath personified at some points, but what would Petunia be? Pride? Obviously, I'm not really sure where I stand on this issue, but I'm hoping to pick your brains on this one. Any thoughts? On the note of multi-dimensional characters, I'd also like to register what a wonderful character I think Snape is. Not that I like him as a person, far from that, I'm just highly impressed that there's always another layer to him. Just when you think you've got him figured out, he does something to surprise you. I think the fact that Rowling can create such deep characters like Snape makes me think the Dursleys are one-dimensional on purpose. ~Francie From dicentra at xmission.com Sat Aug 24 02:56:32 2002 From: dicentra at xmission.com (dicentra63) Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2002 02:56:32 -0000 Subject: Who Framed Fred and George? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43093 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "malady579" wrote: > Dicentra wrote: > > >> People have asserted that Fred and George aren't the most > well-developed characters in the series, and I concur. I think they > must be Toons. They function as Toons. They do things because > they're funny, and for no other reason. > Melody: > The only problem I find with this is > that JKR loves to throw wrenches into common accepted rules of > plotlines. Hence we get Black and Figg mentioned in PS/SS yet are so > important in the plot, Scabbers perceived as innocent pet till PoA, > I guess I cannot see Fred and George as "toon" characters because you > do not give sixteen year old prank-prone wizards a 1000 galleons and > expect them to just be good for comic relief. Ah, but the fact that they may become three-dimensional later doesn't prevent them from *functioning* as Toons in Books 1-4. Harry giving them the galleons happens at the very end of GoF. They might very well become just as important as Sirius became, but that doesn't change the fact that they have been, up until now, Comic Relief. --Dicentra, who hopes they do change status From pennylin at swbell.net Sat Aug 24 03:09:27 2002 From: pennylin at swbell.net (Penny Linsenmayer) Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 22:09:27 -0500 Subject: Fred and George: The Bullies You Do Know References: Message-ID: <02eb01c24b1b$a7f18a20$4f5ffea9@cq5hs01> No: HPFGUIDX 43094 Hi -- Well, as promised, I do have a few more thoughts on this thread -- this got a bit longish. First, I must say -- Debbie quipped: <<<<>>>> Being in full Dr. Seuss mode at this time in my daughter's life, I just have to say: LOL! Excellent. I also happen to agree. Lest anyone might be wondering, I do actually like some of the Weasleys. Really. I do. I *am* the founder & spiritual leader of P.I.N.E. after all. Percy is definitely my favorite Weasley and one of my favorite characters overall in fact. I also like Bill, Charlie and Arthur. The others? Not so much, for different reasons. DRACO VERSUS FRED/GEORGE I'm not *entirely* clear how the discussion spiraled into a direct *comparison* of Draco's actions and the pranks of the The Twins, but there you go. Here are we, so let's see: Elkins argued: <<<<<<<>>>>>>>>> Darrin responded, in part, with: <<<<<<<<<>>>>>>> I doubt that Elkins actually believes that Draco and his gang were "fluffy bunnies." No, the point is not whether Draco & his cronies were innocent or not. Of course they weren't. As someone pointed out, noone involved was in the right completely. The *point* is that the Twins are, at that time, full-fledged adults and perhaps, just perhaps, they should have shown a bit more restraint in their reactions. Was it really necessary to *step* on Draco & his cronies as they left the compartment? Isn't there such a thing as going too far in retribution? I think so. Later, Darrin said: <<<<<<<<>>>>>> Cindy responded: <<<<<>>>>>> Darrin responded with: <<<<<<<>>>>>>>>> I personally found your language to be quite insulting to anyone who holds an opinion that differs from your own. You may have carefully chosen the word "unconscionable," but IMO, it isn't language that ought to be used in reference to opinions held by other members of this list. It's just rude. Disagreement is fine, but civility & respect for differing opinions is the name of the game. DRACO AS RACIST Darrin said: <<<<<<<3) Draco is racist. I cannot put in any plainer than that. To apologize for Draco is to apologize for a stone-cold racist. Therefore, to credibly compare anyone to Draco is to necessarily prove that person or persons is also racist. Fred and George are not. They do not tinge their humor at anyone group in particular.>>>>>> Cindy said: <<<<<<>>>>>>> I had asked for an "IMO" or a qualifier, and Darrin responded with: <<<<<<>>>>> You misunderstand me, Darrin. I didn't mean that you needed an "IMO" with respect to Draco being a racist. I suspect very few people could actively disagree with that one. I think you needed the qualifier with respect to your 3rd statement: that comparing Draco to anyone, on any level apparently, requires the conclusion that the person being compared is also a racist. I said:> In any case, it makes no sense logically to say that comparing anyone, on any level, to Draco means that you are saying that the other person being compared is also a racist. That makes no sense to me. Logically, this just doesn't work.>>>>>>>>>>> Darrin: <<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>> Where your logic doesn't hold up, IMO, is that your original statement says that "to credibly compare anyone to Draco is to necessarily prove that person or persons is also racist." Let's just say that I want to compare Hermione's treatment of Trelawney with Draco's treatment of Hagrid. Must I establish that Hermione is or isn't a racist in order to make this comparison? I think not. Darrin said: <<<<<<<>>>>>>>>> L.O.O.N. patrol: *Fred* got a date to the Yule Ball; we have no evidence that George went with a date at all. We also have no evidence, either way, about whether the Twins are heartthrobs or not. :--) DUDLEY Debbie said: <<<<<<<>>>>>> HF responded with: <<<<<<<>>>>>> Darrin added: <<<<<>>>>>>> I must definitely agree with Debbie, whose point, I think, is not that Dudley doesn't do his own damage. Her point is that Vernon & Petunia started all the problems; they lead by example. Dudley is following his parent's lead, and they must bear the lion's share of the blame for Dudley's problems, perhaps most particularly his bullying treatment of Harry. I doubt anyone, least of all Debbie, would dispute that Dudley is a bully who makes Harry's life miserable. The point though is that Dudley didn't just learn that behavior in a vacuum. In fact, he's been actively *encouraged* to beat up on Harry & bully him further. The ultimate fault lies at the feet of Vernon & Petunia. HUMOR, SURFACE-LEVEL READS VS. DEEPER READS Debbie posed the question: <<<<<>>>>>> I also wonder periodically about this, but in response to the people who've commented that "we must remember" that these are books intended for children, I'd remind you (thanks to Ali for already doing this) that JKR has said repeatedly that she wrote the books for herself and not with a particular target audience of children in mind. In any case, I think the joy of these clearly cross-over books is that adults can find so many different levels of enjoyment that will pass by the children. This is especially true as the characters age into full-blown adolescence & eventual adulthood. I think it's actually great that if a 10 year old read GoF when it first came out in 2000, he could re-read it 5 years later & take a completely different view & so on. As for the "humor" read of the antics of the Twins, I agree in some cases that there are plot points furthered by their actions or they are doing things for comic relief. I'm afraid I must agree that the lock-picking tools & skills are probably more a plot point than anything more sinister. at Debbie. And, I also think Dicey made a good point about the "Toons" in the series (however, I stress that characters who are currently "Toons" aren't destined to remain "Toons" forever necessarily, though they could). But, I do think there's a reasonable basis for a read that Fred & George are on a potentially dangerous path, play fast & loose with the rules in a way that's considerably more dangerous than the Trio ever has, and may have a deeper hidden ambition than any of the other Weasleys, including the surface-level ambitious Percy. Elkins originally argued: <<<<<<>>>>>>>>> Darrin responded with: <<<<<< constantly tweak their mother, so older sibling and authority figures are fair game as well. Thus endeth THAT argument.>>>>>>>>>>> > I said: <<<<<>>>>>>> > Darrin howled in response: <<<<<<>>>>>>>>> Nope, Elkins very clearly said, *outside of their family*, who do they pick on? Younger kids. Weaker kids. Bill and Molly are both part of the family. PERCY Elkins: <<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>> Darrin responded with: <<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>> Oh, so physical harm is the threshold as to whether a prank is "okay" or not? I agree with Debbie also that the pranks have had a very definite & negative effect on Percy. I don't think it merits shrugging it off as just good fun or normal sibling rivalries. It's not, IMO, been particularly healthy for the family overall. Penny (who likes Debbie's theories about the joke shop financier very much ....) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bard7696 at aol.com Sat Aug 24 03:10:29 2002 From: bard7696 at aol.com (darrin_burnett) Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2002 03:10:29 -0000 Subject: Racist! Draco (was Fred and George: The bullies you know) In-Reply-To: <006b01c24b06$5b077ea0$934e28d1@oemcomputer> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43095 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Saitaina" wrote: > <3) Draco is racist. I cannot put in any plainer than that. To > apologize for Draco is to apologize for a stone-cold racist. > Therefore, to credibly compare anyone to Draco is to necessarily > prove that person or persons is also racist. Fred and George are not. > They do not tinge their humor at anyone group in particular.> > > Okay,first of, I have seen NO cannon that points to Draco being a racist. YES he strikes out against those different then him and some could classify Hagrid as being the target of such but you do need a different RACE to be a racist. Mudbloods (or muggle-borns for those who prefer) are not a different race, their a genetic miracle. I wish to clarify what I mean by Wizard World racism. I do not mean he is against blacks, Asians, Latinos or other ethnicities. That is real world racism. Wizard World racism is the prejudice against Muggle-borns. Take the vilest insult, "mudblood." It literally means "dirty blood." Those who are against Muggle borns -- I refuse to use mudblood except when quoting canon, because it has been set forward as an epithet -- are literally against their heritage. For no other reason that who their parents are, these people are discriminated against. Draco wants them kicked out of Hogwarts. Later, we find he wants them killed. Is it "racism" in the term we know? No, it isn't. Muggle borns ARE a genetic miracle and if Draco felt that way, I'd certainly not call him a racist. But he doesn't believe they are a miracle. If he had his way, they'd not exist. > > Draco strikes out against that which he fears like most humans do. He fears that something that should be below him (elitism not racism by the way is shown here)is doing better then he is. Hermione AND Hagrid fall into this category. > > Hermione is top witch, the best of the scholarly best, and she is a mudblood. In Draco's mind that shouldn't be possible, shouldn't happen. It also pisses off Lucius and frankly, Lucius doesn't seem the type of father you should piss off. So why not strike out against a mere girl who does things she shouldn't. In his mind, she needs to be reminded of her place in wizzarding society. This is elitism at it's worst, not racism. In this world, people choose how they react to obstacles. Draco's solution, when threatened by his entire belief system being turned upside down when a Muggle-born beats him out, is to call her what is apparently the most vile epithet and openly wish for her death. Perhaps you are right and he is trying to hurt Hermione for being better than him and is doing it any way possible. But how does he choose to do this? He doesn't say: "Well, if I spent 14 hours a day studying with no life, I could do that too." OR: "If she didn't suck up to the teachers, she'd not have won." OR: "God, look at those teeth!" He chooses to insult the blood flowing through her veins. He wishes to drag her down because of her heritage, something she couldn't control. He chose to make racist comments. This actually is not the case for Hagrid at first. There is, I believe, the difference between racism and elitism. Draco attacks Hermione because of her heritage. He attacks Hagrid because he held a "common" job such as groundskeeper. Later, when he finds Hagrid is half-giant, the racial taunts became more prevalent. > > Cannon does NOT show his racism. It shows his elitism and the fact that he's not creative enough to come up with his own insults. Mudblood may be up there with n- but that doesn't justify Mudbloods as their own race, which they're not. They're still British (or what have you) wizzards who happen to have won the genetic lottery. If he called Dean a certain word or called Seamus the Irish equivalent then that would be racism, but mudblood, nice insult but not quite up there yet. The hatred of that word stems not from it being the insult of n- proportions but because I'm quite sure Mr. Half-Blood himself, Voldemort used it quite often and that gave it it's history. > Actually, I believe Salazar Slytherin started it, but it can be argued Voldemort took it to another level, perhaps one Salazar would be horrified to see now, but there is no way to know that. Again, in the context of the Wizard world, muggle-borns are a "race." They are an oppressed group of people. It is the Wizard equivalent of "darkie", literally insulting something that person cannot control. Again, if Draco viewed this as "genetic lottery" then I think the point is moot. I think he views them more as genetic freaks. > I have been called quite a few words I would consider horrible things to say yet they weren't racist remarks. Just because a word ignites such anger in others doesn't mean it's racist. > I find I'm repeating myself. It is racist because it is attacking a person's heritage. A person cannot control who their parents are. I am making a leap, but it is not a long one here. I feel like I'm playing a semantic game here, so I will put it this way. If you need to call Draco something else besides a racist, then do so. But please, let us not pretend that removing him from the burden of such a negatively connotated word -- one I've not chosen carelessly -- somehow lightens his sins. If you need elitism instead of racism, fair enough, but please remember, Draco openly advocates the murder of those he feels inferior to them. Darrin - Normally loves semantic games, but I'm tired. From saitaina at wizzards.net Sat Aug 24 03:15:17 2002 From: saitaina at wizzards.net (Saitaina) Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 20:15:17 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Racist! Draco (was Fred and George: The bullies you know) References: Message-ID: <002801c24b1c$795b76c0$924e28d1@oemcomputer> No: HPFGUIDX 43096 Darrian (who made a lot of good points but anyway) wrote: I do need to call it elitism instead of racism because I just can't see it that way. I have said my piece and will bow out of the argument now as we both see two diffrent sides and it's a never ending argument. You have made many strong points. Maybe as we see more of Draco in further books we will see further into his elitism/racism but right now I just can't agree with you're point of view. Though it has been a fun debate. Now to make this on topic and so I don't get yelled at, umm...hmm, something on topic...oh well, i tried, too late to think of anything. Saitaina who will now go and hide from the mods. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From yrawen at ontheqt.org Sat Aug 24 03:37:08 2002 From: yrawen at ontheqt.org (yr awen) Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 23:37:08 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Racist! Draco (was Fred and George: The bullies you know) References: <006b01c24b06$5b077ea0$934e28d1@oemcomputer> Message-ID: <004601c24b1f$865238c0$badef718@kzo.chartermi.net> No: HPFGUIDX 43097 I have the feeling I've repeated myself a lot here. Darrin wrote: 3) Draco is racist. I cannot put in any plainer than that. To apologize for Draco is to apologize for a stone-cold racist. Therefore, to credibly compare anyone to Draco is to necessarily prove that person or persons is also racist. Fred and George are not. They do not tinge their humor at anyone group in particular.> Okay,first of, I have seen NO cannon that points to Draco being a racist. YES he strikes out against those different then him and some could classify Hagrid as being the target of such but you do need a different RACE to be a racist. Mudbloods (or muggle-borns for those who prefer) are not a different race, their a genetic miracle. While the words could have the same...feeling of certain words I will not say here out of respect of the list, it's not a racial remark. Mudbloods are still humans, still wizzards, still of the same race.<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Correct there. However, the notion of 'racism' as a phenomenon is founded upon the erroneous notion that there is such a thing as a 100% pure, homogenous group of people whose genetic heritage has been rigorously guarded against intermingling of outsider blood (here I'm thinking of the thoroughly erroneous concept espoused by Hitler & co. of the Aryan race, and the eugenics movements of the early 1900s.) Racism *inevitably* includes an argument at the genetic level -- usually, as I have said, incorrect -- that it uses to justify its claim to superiority over another group. In this sense, Draco is very much the racist. His attitudes toward Muggles and Muggle-borns is one of utter contempt. In the case of Muggle-borns, he is actively intolerant and blindly so. He bases this on purity of wizarding heritage, something Ron is quick to point out is utter bunk: "It's a disgusting thing to call someone," said Ron, wiping his sweaty brow with a shaking hand. "Dirty blood, see. Common blood. It's ridiculous. Most wizards these days are half-blood anyway. If we hadn't married Muggles we'd've died out." Elitism is defined more through social standing as it pertains to money, position in society (or one's rightful position in society.) As I've said, elitism and racism are occasionally cocomitant, taking up space in the same nearsighted, narrowminded person, but elitism is rarely ever intolerant or actively condemnatory of the plebians, so to speak. If anything, it may view the masses as a necessary evil and may willingly marginalize them, but you don't see CEOs going out and advocating the mass slaughter of factory workers (they simply lay them off for profit.) Saitiana: Draco strikes out against that which he fears like most humans do. He fears that something that should be below him (elitism not racism by the way is shown here)is doing better then he is. Hermione AND Hagrid fall into this category. <<<<<< Really? Both Hagrid and Hermione are, by Draco's definition, freaks of nature and possessors of corrupted blood. Hagrid is the son of a giantess. Hermione is a Muggle-born -- both of them are defined _by_their_genetic_heritage as being "below" purebloods. And yet Ron points out the fallacy of Draco's belief, as I've stated above, and the research of anthropology and sociology backs him up, even if Ron's not aware of it. Hermione and Hagrid should be below Draco because they're genetically (read: racially) inferior, which in Draco's mind -- and the mind of the Malfoys, and others -- dictates proper social standing, intelligence, priority of claim in the wizard world, etc. Saitaina: Hermione is top witch, the best of the scholarly best, and she is a mudblood. In Draco's mind that shouldn't be possible, shouldn't happen. It also pisses off Lucius and frankly, Lucius doesn't seem the type of father you should piss off. So why not strike out against a mere girl who does things she shouldn't. In his mind, she needs to be reminded of her place in wizzarding society. This is elitism at it's worst, not racism.<<<<<<<<< You could probably say the same thing about the people who stood outside school buildings in the South and protested during the early stages of desegregation in US schools during the '50s. The elitism you're talking of is what I posted about elsewhere (and no one ever reads my stuff, so I have no idea why I'm writing this); it is closely allied with perceived priority of blood, and *that's* racism. My argument is that elitism employs racism, and the other way around. Draco and other like-minded individuals function latterly; they espouse the idea that purebloods are inherently better, and therefore Muggle-borns/Muggles and their "inferior" status is a direct result of inferiority of blood. Saitana again: Cannon does NOT show his racism. It shows his elitism and the fact that he's not creative enough to come up with his own insults.<<<<<<< If canon illustrates his elitism, Draco would be saying, "Death to the poor wizards among us! Death!" *That's* elitism. But instead he takes great glee in telling Harry that it'll be "Mudbloods and Muggle-lovers first" at the end of GoF. When he refers to Hermione and Ron as riffraff, their societal status as being below him is defined by blood; Hermione is a witch of corrupt lineage, while Ron's family sympathizes with regular, genetically inferior humans. Mudblood may be up there with n- but that doesn't justify Mudbloods as their own race, which they're not. They're still British (or what have you) wizzards who happen to have won the genetic lottery. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< "British" is not a race, it's a nationality. Big difference. I would suggest here that perception of 'race' (as fallacious as that concept may be, but I'll employ it for ease of argument) in the wizarding world is not the same as what we would call an ethnic group, but rather centers around the possession of a certain genotype -- that is, pureblood, halfblood, Muggle-born, and Muggle. My reasons are as follows: 1.) The existence of a Muggle-protection act, signed into law by Arthur Weasley. As much as the Muggles may seem to be a large, exotic tribe to Arthur, they are nonetheless recognized as a group that can be marginalized and potentially persected by wizardkind, and this persecution can extend from simple "Muggle-baiting" to.... 2.) The constant persecution of Muggles at the hands of Death Eaters, who presumably torture and kill Muggles for kicks, among other unsavory activities. Their notion of genetically-given superiority, though, finds a disturbing echo in.... 3.) The persistence of belief in pureblood superiority in the Ministry, which makes the Muggle-protection act necessary in the first place. Dumbledore expresses this eloquently (GOF36, US hardcover): "You place too much importance, and you always have done, on the so-called purity of blood! You fail to recognize that it matters not what someone is born, but what they grow to be! Your dementor has just destroyed the last remaining member of a pureblood family as old as any -- and see what that man chose to make of his life!" Molly also says that Arthur's love of Muggles has kept him from advancing up the Ministry hierarchy, because Fudge thinks he lacks "proper wizarding pride." Pride of group for wizards is defined, at least by Fudge and other like-minded people, as being INBORN. By extension, inferiority is inborn as well -- and that's a basic argument advanced by racists. And Draco advances it on more than one occasion. Saitaina: You could do that, you could also delve into the world of homophobia and say fags and fag-lovers. You could transfer many words into those two and ignite the same anger and same hatred. That just proves he had no imagination and really doesn't like Hermione. Doesn't prove he's a racist.<<<<<<<< But he doesn't limit his dislike to just Hermione! She happens to be the most available target, and the one we hear most about because she's with Harry. As seen in my above reference of GoF, and seen abundantly throughout CoS, Draco views Muggle-borns as being worthy of purgation by either the Dark Lord or the basilisk. Saitaina: People, children especially will strike out at those they don't understand. Draco is a classic example of this. <<<<<<< Yes, and people with the mindset of children will strike out at what they don't understand -- or, more accurately, what they refuse to understand. It is endemic to our nature and, in my opinion, thoroughly inexcusable in any civilization that has the nerve to call itself civilized. I can do no better than to quote one of my favorite authors, Paul Tabori, from his 'The Natural History of Stupidity' (excellent book), in reference to fear and prejudice: '... If racial prejudice (accounting for much of this particular idiocy [prejudice in general]) is simply a matter of "group menace," how is it that people are guilty of it who are not in the remotest way menaced by Negroes, Chinamen, or Jews? And there are sufficient exceptions to the rule in places where such a menace *does* exist -- or at least looks as though it existed [this is in Tabori's refutation to GM Stratton, who argues that racial prejudice is a result of one group feeling endangered by another]. In spite of the eminent Mr. Stratton, I feel that, to be prejudiced racially or in any other way presupposes a mental condition we must call stupidity if only for want of a better word. It is not innorn -- here we can agree with the author of "Social Psychology of International Conduct" -- and it is not natural. But if no individual is entirely free from prejudice, it is the _effect_ of his prejudices on his actions that makes him a stupid bigot or a balanced human being." Saitaina: Feel free to pick apart my post, but please, come up with something more then just what we see on the surface. Humans are made up of much more then the face we show in public, even Draco.<<<<<<<< Well, I'll believe it when JKR shows it to us. HF. -- Habent sua fata libelli. /Books have their own destiny.\ + terentianus maurus + [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bard7696 at aol.com Sat Aug 24 03:28:22 2002 From: bard7696 at aol.com (darrin_burnett) Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2002 03:28:22 -0000 Subject: Fred and George: The Bullies You Do Know In-Reply-To: <02eb01c24b1b$a7f18a20$4f5ffea9@cq5hs01> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43098 Debbie wrote: > You misunderstand me, Darrin. I didn't mean that you needed an "IMO" with respect to Draco being a racist. I suspect very few people could actively disagree with that one. I think you needed the qualifier with respect to your 3rd statement: that comparing Draco to anyone, on any level apparently, requires the conclusion that the person being compared is also a racist. > First, I am very swamped right now, so I apologize if I give you post short-shrift. Fair enough. I see where I was mistaken. I think I put forth an argument to what you were asking lower down. As an aside, I rarely put IMO because I think it is superfluous. I believe EVERYTHING we discuss on this board or any other, is mostly opinion. > > I said:> In any case, it makes no sense logically to say that comparing > anyone, on any level, to Draco means that you are saying that the > other person being compared is also a racist. That makes no sense to > me. Logically, this just doesn't work.>>>>>>>>>>> > > Darrin: > > <<<<<<<< his racism and his elitism -- he believes he is better than the > Weasley's because he has more money -- while the Twins' actions are > not. > > My logic is sound. To try and ascribe the same motivations behind the > Twins' actions, you must first establish that they are doing it > because they feel their targets are inferior. > > I say you can't do that.>>>>>>>>>> > > Where your logic doesn't hold up, IMO, is that your original statement says that "to credibly compare anyone to Draco is to necessarily prove that person or persons is also racist." Let's just say that I want to compare Hermione's treatment of Trelawney with Draco's treatment of Hagrid. Must I establish that Hermione is or isn't a racist in order to make this comparison? I think not. > No, but my argument does need more clarity, which I hope to provide. Draco's treatment of Hagrid is motivated by elitism. He believes Hagrid, a servant in his eyes, is inferior to be a teacher. Later, he finds that Hagrid is not a pure wizard, which only adds to his contempt for Hagrid. Hermione's treatment of Trelawney boils down to intellectual disagreements. Hermione simply doesn't believe Trelawney's schtick, but further believes -- as does her apparent idol McGonagall -- that Predictions are unreliable. There is no evidence that Hermione dislikes Trelawney because of her wizarding status, or her former profession, or her last name, or the money in her vault at Gringotts, or anything else Draco holds dear. She simply believes Trelawney is a fraud. In that sense, her feelings toward Trelawney are similar, perhaps identical, to Draco's feelings for Hagrid. Draco certainly believes Hagrid isn't fit to be a teacher, and does have other reasons behind the twin isms of elitism and racism -- not the least of which is that Draco got injured in class. But before Hagrid even became a teacher, Draco saw him as inferior. So, I submit that to credibly compare the negative actions and feelings of Draco to any other character, you must prove those character's motivation is racism or elitism. Or conversely, prove that in this instance, Draco's motivation is not racism or elitism. Only then are we comparing apples to apples. This has actually been done. Weeks ago, after much gnashing, I conceded that many of Hagrid's actions, especially in the beginning, were motivated by racism. I hated doing it, because I love Hagrid, but the evidence is truly there. > Darrin said: <<<<<<< they aren't heartthrobs.>>>>>>>>>> > > L.O.O.N. patrol: *Fred* got a date to the Yule Ball; we have no evidence that George went with a date at all. We also have no evidence, either way, about whether the Twins are heartthrobs or not. :--) > Well, it's personal preference. I know if I was 11 again, I'd consider Hermione a babe, but I like smart women. ;) Darrin -- Darrin's rule of partying. Let the other guys go after the Lavender's of the world. While they crowd around her, the Hermione's are waiting. From yrawen at ontheqt.org Sat Aug 24 04:03:09 2002 From: yrawen at ontheqt.org (yr awen) Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2002 00:03:09 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] One-Dimensional Dursleys References: Message-ID: <005301c24b23$28cf2d80$badef718@kzo.chartermi.net> No: HPFGUIDX 43099 Francie said: To propose a theory myself, I think the Dursleys could be allegorical for some of the seven deadly sins, which are Envy, Sloth, Wrath, Gluttony, Pride, Lust, and Greed. Well, Dudley definitely fits the gluttony aspect, and Vernon is certainly Wrath personified at some points, but what would Petunia be? Pride? Obviously, I'm not really sure where I stand on this issue, but I'm hoping to pick your brains on this one. Any thoughts?<<<<<<<<< I don't think JKR was attempting allegory, because for allegory to work, it has to be consistent -- that is, you'd have to allegorize *all* the Potterverse and its plot. Doubtless someone has done that; if they have.... Ummm, I won't say anything. Yes. To continue, I would suggest an alternative term to 'allegory', and that is 'embodiment.' That would work a bit more smoothly than a word that would have JKR's universe wrenched into some kind of cruel, unnatural system. Whether they are or not, that I cannot answer. They certainly *seem* to embody some of the more negative characteristics of humankind -- sloth, insatiable appetite, envy, avarice, wrath -- and JKR hasn't really gone out of the way to suggest that the Dursleys have much in the way of any redeeming value. That would lead me to say, tentatively, that she intends for them to be stress sources for Harry, who has to navigate his way through their blind, unreasoning hatred: in this sense, the Dursleys are almost psychomachiac; they embody Harry's own fears and prejudices against which he has to fight if he's to live with some fragment of self-worth. And for more commentary on that, I'd refer you, and anyone else so interested, to Sheldon Cashdan's "The Witch Must Die: The Hidden Meaning of Fairy Tales" (Basic Books, 1999)-- although I sort of get the sense that, as we're talking about a wizarding world, the referral is somewhat ironic . Still, Cashdan has a lot to say about the consistently one-dimensional witch/evil stepmother, what she embodies, and how she is used by fairy tales to get their respective points across. Francie: On the note of multi-dimensional characters, I'd also like to register what a wonderful character I think Snape is. Not that I like him as a person, far from that, I'm just highly impressed that there's always another layer to him.<<<<<<<< Yeah, I love him :-) What can I say? He's grown on me. And I don't 'love' him in the sense that I perceive my reality and his fictionality to not be an impediment to our getting married one day -- as you said, I love the complexity of his character Francie: Just when you think you've got him figured out, he does something to surprise you. I think the fact that Rowling can create such deep characters like Snape makes me think the Dursleys are one-dimensional on purpose.<<<<<< There was a huuuuge, long discussion sometime toward the beginning/middle of July, right when I first joined up, about the Dursleys' one-dimensionality, their social class, and JKR's critique of (or confusion over) the values the Dursleys embody and the values espoused by the rest of the book. I remember only some of it because I was brand-spanking new, but hopefully someone else out there can give a better rundown than the one I won't attempt to do HF. -- Habent sua fata libelli. /Books have their own destiny.\ + terentianus maurus + [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Sat Aug 24 05:08:13 2002 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (bboy_mn) Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2002 05:08:13 -0000 Subject: Racist! Draco (was Fred and George: The bullies you know) In-Reply-To: <004601c24b1f$865238c0$badef718@kzo.chartermi.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43100 HF. (yr awen) made a lot of great points (post 43097). I'm not responding directly to them. This is more of a side comment in the debate. We aren't (IMHO) stuggling to define whether Draco is a racist, so much as we are struggling to define race. To some extent, it is unique biological and physical characteristic that are based in a persons ancient geographical origins; Afro/Equitorial (black/brown), Anglo/Euro/Scandian (white), and Asiatic (tan and very close to Equitorial but with slightly different physical characteristics). Although, in the Wizard World, the unigue defining characteristic is not ancient geographical origins; it's ancient magical origins. I have no doubt that Draco views pure-blood wizards as a separate and superior race of people. I could even go so far as imagining some wizards seeing muggles as vermin, as overgrown filthy rats that are infesting their own personal precious planet. I only have the vaguest recollection, but I believe there was some debate in the magic world whether Humans (as in muggles) would be classified as people or beasts. (I won't swear to that.) While not related to ancient geographical origin; I think I would still classify that (Draco & Co.) as racist based on my assumption that Draco does not see himself as being from the same race as muddy bloody muggles. That's my story and I'm sticking to it. bboy_mn From lilac_bearry at yahoo.com Sat Aug 24 05:14:35 2002 From: lilac_bearry at yahoo.com (Lilac) Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 22:14:35 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Cho's possible betrayal? Message-ID: <20020824051435.38082.qmail@web40304.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 43101 I tried to access the archives on this subject...honest I did! But, I am having the darndest time with Yahoomort and his "Archives of Secrets". So, I'm asking for forgiveness first. I'll know it's been beaten to death if no one says anything.... I mentioned this "hunch" of mine to a friend on this list, and she suggested I put it out there for the rest of you, although it's just in it's infancy: What if Cho betrays Harry to Voldemort out of revenge for Cedric's death? She is very vulnerable right now, and could probably be very easily manipulated by the dark side to help them get to the person who "brought" Cedric to the graveyard. We all know what really happened and that Harry is not to blame, but everybody else knows just what Dumbledore told them...that Cedric was killed by Voldemort. How hard would it be for Lucias Malfoy, or some other DE who might be from Ravenclaw (they *can* be from other houses, you know, like Pettigrew from Gryffindor) to tell her some tall-tale of how Harry jumped behind Cedric to miss being hit by the AK, or that he knew that the cup was a portkey, or any other story, just to get her to do what they want? And what *would* they want? For Cho to get close to Harry, gain his trust (and even love) and take a trip off Hogwart's grounds (perhaps to Hogsmeade through one of the tunnels), where he wouldn't be under Dumbledore's and Hogwart's protection. Nicole, my friend, said that this would be very "Bangy". Anyone else out there have any thoughts or hunches about this? ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~ "Tut, tut --- hardly any of you remembered that my favorite color is *lilac*. I say so in Year with the Yeti." --Gilderoy Lockhart, COS --------------------------------- Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From lupinesque at yahoo.com Sat Aug 24 05:31:14 2002 From: lupinesque at yahoo.com (lupinesque) Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2002 05:31:14 -0000 Subject: Who Framed Fred and George? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43102 Brilliant analysis, Dicentra. I think you get at exactly why we can laugh at some things and cringe at others that are quite similar. It also gets at why different readers react differently to the same scene: who is and who is not a Toon is not a simple objective matter, but varies with the reader's perspective. Most of us have a Toon character whom we relate to strongly enough that he/she isn't a Toon *to us* at all. Looking to your examples, I think the ground is shaky under Neville, because Neville *isn't* a Toon. He is quite complex. Most of the portrait is Toonish--the slightly pudgy, forgetful class klutz--but from very early in the series that portrait is complexified. He's gutsy, and he has a hidden sorrow that would be a heavy burden to an adult much less a child. He is also written in a way to invite our empathy, which makes any prank targeted at him likely to make us wince rather than laugh. Now, the > Canary Cremes are still funny, but for a different reason: Neville himself finds the prank funny. See, if his feelings were hurt by it, it wouldn't count in my book as "Danger Averted." Danger isn't just having an anvil fall on your head; in a drama about children, a drama about school, one of the chief dangers is emotional: being friendless, shunned, or the target of ridicule. (Harry suffers all three to varying degrees at various times and our sympathy is meant to be strongly with him.) But Neville really doesn't mind this one, and those of us who want to give F & G the benefit of the doubt can decide that they knew he wouldn't. Kind, non-bullying practical jokers don't overstep that line. They don't tape down the sink sprayer on the morning you're wearing a silk blouse for an essential interview; they don't tease you when they know you've had a really bad day; they don't, in short, do real harm (including emotional) or kick anyone who's down. This is why, of all of Fred and George's pranks that you mentioned, I have the hardest time with the snowballs on Quirrell (fortunately, you left out the painful Puffskein Incident--I don't want to go over that one again). Quirrell proves to be complex, too; he is no weakling and no sweetheart; but Fred and George don't know that at the time, and neither do we. (Nor do any of us know that they are actually snowballing Voldemort, which is hilarious in a whole different way.) What we do know is that none of the kids respect him- -his class is "a bit of a joke." We don't know how his colleagues regard him, but he stutters, one of the Top Ten Symptoms of characters suffering social rejection. He's a nebbish. Now, picking on a nebbish is almost excusable when he's your teacher, because students tend to feel themselves on the losing end of a power imbalance with any teacher and so their little revenges are quite understandable; i.e., the students are the underdogs in the relationship, not the bullies. But it's a close thing. When a student humiliates a teacher thoroughly enough, the power imbalance shifts very dramatically, for the very fact that the teacher is supposed to be on top makes it all the more humiliating to him when a student treats him as a weakling. ************** Elsewhere on this thread: the moral standing of the target of the joke is relevant to the question "are they bullies?" Dudley is given a small bit of his overdue comeuppance by his long-suffering victim's surrogate big brothers (and this is the case whether Dudley's parents made him a bully or not. Most bullies are made rather than born, but at 14 they are responsible for their own actions). Likewise, stepping on Goyle and Malfoy, especially the latter, is not bullying in the way that stepping on someone merely inconvenient like Cedric would be. I'm not advocating revenge as a matter of policy, just saying that it's a bit much to call it bullying when you are not picking on someone weaker, but on someone stronger (a bully, in fact) who is temporarily vulnerable. Revenge, in other words, is not the same as bullying. Amy Z who can't quite believe how much she wrote about this seemingly trivial matter ----------------------------------------- "Winky is having trouble adjusting, Harry Potter," squeaked Dobby confidentially. --HP and the Goblet of Fire ----------------------------------------- From tmarends at yahoo.com Sat Aug 24 05:36:21 2002 From: tmarends at yahoo.com (tmarends) Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2002 05:36:21 -0000 Subject: Powerful Harry/ Gryffindor heir/ Fred and George/ Parents' attitude/ In-Reply-To: <015a01c24b03$e7b6d7e0$649ecdd1@istu757> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43103 Richelle wrote: > > That reminds me of something my mother said. She's seen the movie, but not > read the books (though she's heard a bit more than she cares to from my > ramblings). Therefore her canon *is* the movie. Anyway, I was theorizing > aloud about the meanings of a "delicate" Harry, and she jumped in. She > thought it was quite apparent that he *was* delicate, he was pale after all, > and the Dursleys were so mean to him and didn't feed him right and kept him > locked up and on and on. Very well, though couldn't that mean > Daniel Radcliffe was pale and not Harry Potter? :) Anyhow, I think this is > the general reaction fromparents, they tend to worry about Harry rather than > get into the plot. > > Richelle OK... OT and should be on the movie site, but Richelle brought it up. As an actor who works on both stage and screen I can attest that makeup does wonders to make an impression that isn't there. You can totally change a person with very little effort. If Daniel Radcliffe is pale and they didn't want him to be, they'd have used a darker base on him... likewise, if darker than they wanted they'd use a lighter base. You can be sure that what he looked like in the Movie- that-must-not-be-named is exactly what they were going for. Tim A. From Ali at zymurgy.org Sat Aug 24 10:28:18 2002 From: Ali at zymurgy.org (alhewison) Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2002 10:28:18 -0000 Subject: HP- childrens books? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43104 I've noticed a few posts recently referring to the Potterverse as "children's books" or "primarily for children". I can't help wondering why. I know that the books were marketed for children. But I thought that when JKR first conceived the idea, she had no specific market in mind ? just her own enjoyment. She seems unwilling to compromise about the "darkness" which we all expect to see in the books, just to maintain the suitability for her younger readers. In short, she has written books that she likes and that are open for everyone to read and enjoy. Why then do so many consider the books for children? I hear the phrase authorial intent. Once the books are written, it's for others to decide what they are about, and who they are for. Well, haven't we all decided that they are for adults? I know that the publishing companies have marketed the books at children, but in Britain at least, Bloomsbury has acknowledged their adult readership by providing different covers. Admittedly, I can not see the point in owning such an edition. It would mean waiting a bit longer to get the books, an unnecessary wait IMHO, not to mention the "sadness" of trying to pretend you are reading something somehow more "adult". Perhaps the trouble with HP is that previously we have been too ready to categorise books into genres. Kids books, fantasy books, who-done- its. HP doesn't readily fit any of these, although as kids love the books that is where they were first pigeon-holed. To be fair, I think that the first books were more child-orientated, but I wonder if we will feel the same, when (and IF) the series finishes. I am not ashamed of reading books because they have been written for children, but I just don't think that HP fits neatly into this category. I first heard about HP just over 4 years ago in a review. The review talked about this children's book that had become established by way of word of mouth, from child to child. It gave a basic outline of the Philosopher's Stone. I was hooked! I told myself that I would buy the book and keep it for my daughter (then less than a year old!). So the fact that I thought I was reading a children's book did not matter. The fact is, I think that we have got much more. I think that as adults we read different things into the texts, our favourite characters (I'm thinking here of the likes of Lupin, Sirius and Snape) are likely to be differ from the favourites of children. (Although our love of the "Trio" is likely to be common to everyone. I was recently talking to an 11-year-old about the books. She told me that PoA was her least favourite book ? the ending was boring; the Shrieking Shack scene her least favourite. To me, the twists and turns we see in PoA, the psychological suspense make it my favourite. The fact is that JKR has managed to provide enjoyment to a great many different readers of many different ages. The majority of my "30- something" friends have now read these books. They continue to snigger at my love for them, but it doesn't stop them from discusing them, or craving the next book. Ali now off to enjoy a Bank Holiday weekend From catherine at cator-manor.demon.co.uk Sat Aug 24 11:54:56 2002 From: catherine at cator-manor.demon.co.uk (Catherine Coleman) Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2002 12:54:56 +0100 Subject: Why I like the Twins (was Fred and George, the Bullies You Do Know) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43105 I have to say that I was amazed when I read Elkins' post on the Twins. I must have somehow missed the February thread, because it has never even occurred to me that anyone could see Fred and George as "thuggish cads", let alone bullies. And with apologies to Elkins, I don't think calling them cads is at all appropriate, as this implies some kind of dishonesty and dishonourable behaviour on their part, which I don't think is shown in their canon appearances at all. A lot of analysis of various incidents has been thrown up here, including comparisons between the Twins and Draco and his cronies. I would agree with everyone who says that what Draco does is harmful - it's malicious, it is meant to cause pain - even death! He has tried variously to get people expelled/seriously injured/sacked/killed, with absolutely no remorse. He spends much of his time inflicting emotional torment on various Gryffindors, as he has a knack of seeing someone's weaknesses and exploiting them. Not pleasant. I therefore find it hard to equate this behaviour with they way in which Fred and George are portrayed. To me, they have always been loveable, mischievous, kind hearted pranksters, who *do* have sensitivity. I have to say that the reason I like the twins is *not* because of their humour. I have never been a fan of slapstick, and I don't find it particularly funny. Overall, however, I do think that Fred and George use their humour in a positive, or at the very least, harmless way. I take Dicentra's point about "Toons." I don't see the Twins as "Toons" themselves, but I think that sometimes their actions are a bit "Toon-ish." An example of this for me would be the snowball incident. I very much got from that scene that JKR wanted to us to remember this when we discover that Voldemort is grafted onto Quirrel's head. I just assumed that as Fred and George are the ones with the reputation for being practical jokers, that's why she gave the snowball hex to them. Anyway, I digress... So why do I like the Twins? Well... I think that we get the measure of the twins on the very first occasion we see them interact with Harry. What do the twins see when they first set eyes on Harry? A first year boy who is small for his age and thin (even pale and delicate looking?) , who is on his own so is presumably friendless, who is dressed in shabby, ill-fitting clothes, and who is struggling to get a large trunk onto the train. They may also have assumed that he was Muggle born, considering that he didn't know how to get onto the platform. If they were real bullies, wouldn't they have taken malicious pleasure in this? Wouldn't their eyes have gleamed, and the words "potential victim" flashed across their minds? Wouldn't they have immediately have picked Harry up on their radar as weak and friendless, therefore prime bullying material? So at worst, they would have used this as an opportunity to have a dig and filed this information away. At best, wouldn't they have taken pleasure at his predicament and either ignored him or deliberately have watched him struggle? To me this is what bullies do. But they don't. They *help* him. They help this nobody of a first year, not Harry Potter - they don't know that he's the famous Harry Potter - they don't know if he's going to be sorted into Gryffindor or Slytherin - and at this point he most emphatically isn't part of their circle of friends and family - but they still help him. Can you imagine Draco or Dudley, reacting in the same way? I know this is a relatively small incident (it is, however, one of my favourite scenes in PS), but I think that it shows a side of the twins which I like, even admire. They show that their instincts are to be kind to and take pity on a complete stranger, who *is* younger and weaker and seemingly less fortunate than themselves. This simply is not how people with the real bully mentality behave. If you also take on board the fact that they could have thought that he was Muggle born, the scene also gives credence to the reasons why the Twins gave Dudley the toffee. Not because he is Muggle born - they don't have any problem with Muggleborns or Muggles - but they do have a problem with "great bullying git(s)", and quite rightly so. Another thing about bullies. They are cowards at heart. They very rarely attack other bullies, for fear of retribution. I think that Fred and George are disgusted by Dudley's behaviour, and disgusted by Draco's behaviour, because they find the whole idea of bullying reprehensible, and therefore a) try and give them a taste of their own medicine and b) try and even the score a little. They don't always go about things in the best way, and I do agree that they occasionally go too far, but I honestly believe that their intentions are good. Another comment about the carriage scene. What are the Twins' motives? To make sure that Draco and his cronies aren't going to cause trouble for Harry and his friends. BTW, I always thought that the Twins seem to pick up on how Harry is feeling. I can just see them thinking that it would be a Bad Thing to let Draco verbally loose on Harry after everything else he has been through. Fred and George aren't solely responsible for hexing Draco, Crabbe and Goyle. Harry and Ron help "kick" them out of the compartment. Does that make them bullies too? After all, as Draco is out cold, he's obviously weaker than them and defenceless, so what they do could be seen as cowardly and mean - literally kicking a man when he is down. I don't suppose many people would accept that though, and I would agree - the provocation here was immense. So what is the difference here between Harry and Ron "kicking" Draco, Crabbe and Goyle, and the Twins stepping on them? As their apologist, let me take a brief look at some of their other "victims." Percy - well, I see much of that as being affectionate - the Christmas scene in PS in particular. Unless there is an argument that they want Percy to spend Christmas with them so they have their "victim" up close and available, much in the same way that Aunt Marge does with Harry in PoA? As much as I love Percy (and I am a paid up member of PINE), I do think that whatever his motivations (one of which I am sure is insecurity), he does come across as being pompous. I think that the Twins have been vainly trying to teach him to be able to laugh at himself a bit more - to become a bit more relaxed and not to take everything so seriously. Perhaps they know that he is unhappy, and that if he lightens up a bit, some of the cloud would lift? Ditto Neville. Anyone could have ended up with the Canary Cream - Neville picked it up. But I see Neville as someone else who needs to be able to laugh at himself a little bit more - it's a confidence builder. Before you think that I'm doing a major whitewash job here, let me tell you that the odd thing about them has worried me. The Puffskein incident is not pleasant - I remember talking to Amy about this once, when we both hoped that Ron was joking. This probably isn't the case, but it isn't inconceivable. Also, poor little Malcolm Braddick. In the context we are given, this isn't very pleasant, but I'm afraid that I saw it again as the Twins being a bit thoughtless, and behaving in a Pantomime-ish way, not as being particularly malicious. And we don't hear about them hissing at other Slytherins. Could this be a clue about the Braddicks as a whole? Is there some history there which is going to come out later. Otherwise, why wouldn't JKR make a point of saying that the Twins hiss at all first years who are sorted into Slytherin? If you read on here, you are going to believe that I'm biased in favour of the twins. I suppose that I am in a way, as the following Real Life analogy will show. When I was at secondary school, I was bullied a great deal. Break times in the playground were absolute torture. Then, as I was a musician and joined the school orchestra, I got to know a couple of other boys - 4 years older than me - who noticed how I was being treated by my peers. These two were a real life Fred and George - not twins, but a real double act. They were always playing practical jokes on people (my favourite was when they took the inside of the piano out just before choir practice, burying the keys in the flower beds outside) , they had great senses of humour, they broke school rules and several of our teachers used to pull their hair out over their behaviour. However, they were never, ever malicious, they never did anything either physically or verbally which would actually hurt anyone else. They never picked up on people's weak points and exploited them (and where are the examples of Fred and George doing just this?). In short, they were never deliberately unkind. Everyone loved them, even their exasperated teachers. Anyway, they took me under their wing, let me hang out with them to keep me away from the bullies, gently teased me (they seemed to know just how much I could take - I was very shy and introverted in those days and they helped get me out of it), and literally stopped my first two years of secondary school from being hell. I was talking to one of them recently (he found me on Friendsreunited), and he said that they could see what was going on with the bullies, and as I was a fellow musician, and therefore "one of them", he thought that it was important for them both to quietly watch out for me. Well, they did, to the extent that on occasion they threatened the *real* thugs who were bothering me. They hated bullies, and were strong enough to stand up to them on my behalf. No way did I ever see what they were doing as bullying as well. It wasn't - they were simply standing up to bullies in the same way that I think Fred a George do. I've always been grateful to them for this. Anyway, as soon as I met Fred and George, I equated them with these two. They are also capable of acts of kindness - giving Harry the map for instance, when they know he is miserable about not visiting Hogsmeade, getting angry with Oliver Wood for encouraging Harry to play on when Dobby's bludger is after him, rescuing Harry from the Dursleys, telling Harry that he wasn't the only one badly affected by the Dementors, pretending that Harry is the Heir of Gryffindor, so they can show him how ludicrous they think the idea is. I call some of this kind and big-hearted of them - and if they treat Harry like this (it's from his POV, remember) what's to say that they don't behave in an equally kind way towards others? So, perhaps I am biased in their favour, but I've gone very carefully through the books we currently have at our disposal, and I honestly can't see that my analysis of their behaviour is wrong. Thoughtless and a bit OTT at times? Yes. Bullies? Definitely not. Catherine From shindemo_ii at yahoo.com Sat Aug 24 12:13:57 2002 From: shindemo_ii at yahoo.com (Kate Tanski) Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2002 05:13:57 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] HP- childrens books? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020824121357.74578.qmail@web14909.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 43106 One of the problems I have with the denial of the HP books as 'Children's Literature' is that most adults seem to believe that the label 'Children's Literature' refers to a dumbed down version of adult literature and, of course, HP is not dumbed down for children. In my research for my HP thesis, I've come across hundreds of articles that critically examine Children's Literature, and by no means believe it to be less worthy of criticism than adult literature. Alice in Wonderland is considered to be Children's Literature, yet Norton has a critically annotated version published which examines Lewis Carroll with the same sharpness that they examine Charlotte Bronte. Additionally, some of the best articles on Harry Potter come from Children's Literature magazines, although they are slowly seeping into the mainstream as more and more people accept HP as something special. The 'Adult covers' printed by Bloomsbury aren't in my opinion a reflection of the acceptance of HP as 'Adult' literature, but an attempt to cash in on more money and save the Tube readers some embarassment. I believe it was Philip Nel who asserted that HP will actually become a Bildungsroman, a coming of age study of Harry Potter as we see him grow from boyhood to manhood. Most critical studies of HP examine the large concepts that JKR battles with: Good vs Evil, Power and it's uses, Racism, etc. Mixed in with this aspect is also of course, adventure, mystery, fantasy . . . all elements that are genre specific, not age specific, and all elements that are deeply rooted in the children's literature/folkloric tradition. It is for this reason that I believe Harry Potter was first marketed as Children's Literature and I believe it to be an accurate assessment of the series, although that may change. One of the most interesting things about the novels is the way each one grows with Harry, emotionally and textually. An 11 year old boy is going to think about girls quite differently than a 14 year old boy, and JK does a wonderfully subtle job of showing this. I think we are at a disadvantage trying to classify the series when it hasn't been completed yet, and because of that we should take JKR's claim that it wasn't intended for children with a grain of salt. Perhaps it wasn't intended to be for children, and perhaps if she had written all seven books and then looked for a publisher these classifications wouldn't be as difficult as they are now. Respectfully retreating once more to lurkerdom, =Kate= __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes http://finance.yahoo.com From bard7696 at aol.com Sat Aug 24 13:18:57 2002 From: bard7696 at aol.com (darrin_burnett) Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2002 13:18:57 -0000 Subject: Why I like the Twins (was Fred and George, the Bullies You Do Know) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43107 Catherine Coleman wrote: > So why do I like the Twins? Well... > > I think that we get the measure of the twins on the very first occasion we see them interact with Harry. What do the twins see when they first set eyes on Harry? A first year boy who is small for his age and thin (even pale and delicate looking?) , who is on his own so is presumably friendless, who is dressed in shabby, ill-fitting clothes, and who is struggling to get a large trunk onto the train. They may also have assumed that he was Muggle born, considering that he didn't know how to get onto the platform. > This is an excellent point. In my admittedly spirited defense of the lads, I left this one out. Contrast this with Draco's first meeting with Harry, when he also doesn't know who Harry is, which house he'll be in, or whether or not he's Wizard- or Muggle-born. UK, page 60-61: Draco insults Hufflepuff; degrades Hagrid as a servant and a "savage"; insists on knowing whether Harry's parents were "our kind"; spews his doctrine of how Muggle-borns shouldn't be allowed into Hogwarts; and asks to hear Harry's surname. (Harry leaves before giving it) This was not part of the latest thread, but let us fast-forward to when he discovers who Harry is. I've read some Draco apologies that treat the moment when Draco offers his friendship to Harry as a tragic thing for Draco, rejected by mean Harry. Page 81: He insults the Weasleys -- Harry's only wizard friends close to his own age so far -- for the offense of being poor and then when Harry neatly puts him down, takes it up to another level. He says: "Unless you're a bit politer, you'll go the same way as your parents." A reasonable translation might go like this: "Be nicer to me, or you'll be killed. They had what was coming to them." It has been brought up -- why the comparisons to Fred and George and Draco? Because the same word that surely applies to Draco -- bully -- has been attempted to be slapped on Fred and George. If that characterization is attempted, I think it is very valid to compare their actions, the motivations behind them, and the reactions of others to them. I have said it before and I'll say it here again, hopefully more concisely. Picture a kid who feels like an outcast, be it because of his or her poverty, sexual orientation, family name, lack of social skills, lack of talent, or whatever. Do you believe that person will be treated better and welcomed more in Draco's circle or Harry's circle? > Another thing about bullies. They are cowards at heart. They very > rarely attack other bullies, for fear of retribution. I think that Fred and George are disgusted by Dudley's behaviour, and disgusted by Draco's behaviour, because they find the whole idea of bullying reprehensible, and therefore a) try and give them a taste of their own medicine and b) try and even the score a little. They don't always go about things in the best way, and I do agree that they occasionally go too far, but I honestly believe that their intentions are good. > The Two-Ton Toffee incident is an example of going too far with good intentions. That prank is a lot riskier than you might think. A combination of an enlarged tongue and sheer panic could lead to suffocation. I despise Dudley for a cowardly bully and despise the Dursleys even more for creating this monster with their abysmal parenting and inflicting him on the world, but I don't think he deserves to die. Also, the prank was risky to Arthur. Although F&G know, and Arthur knows, that the prank wasn't Muggle-attacking for the sake of Muggle- attacking, for a man in Arthur's job, perception is truth. (Lucius Malfoy so deviously plotted for this very reality when he handed Ginny the book in CoS.) But again, their motive was to give Dudley a little karmic payback for the years of abuse against Harry. I'll keep saying it. The true bullying victim of the books is Harry. Also, poor little Malcolm Braddick. In the context we are given, this isn't very pleasant, but I'm afraid that I saw it again as the Twins being a bit thoughtless, and behaving in a Pantomime-ish way, not as being particularly malicious. And we don't hear about them hissing at other Slytherins. Could this be a clue about > the Braddicks as a whole? Is there some history there which is going to come out later. Otherwise, why wouldn't JKR make a point of saying that the Twins hiss at all first years who are sorted into Slytherin? > After the Malcolm Braddock incident first came to light as a F&G attack, I found myself wondering: "Am I that insensitive that I missed this in the canon?" Then I read the canon and find that maybe I'm still somewhat human. The image of this has been created by the F&G attackers that Malcolm walked directly by the twins and they hissed at him, tormenting a terrified kid. I don't believe that to be the case. UK PS pg 89 tells us that the Gryffindor table is on the far left of the hall, with the Ravenclaw table the second from left. Hufflepuff is on the "right" which I'm taking to mean far right. This would place Slytherin second from right, so there is a table - Ravenclaw - between Gryffs and Slyths. I could be wrong and Slyth is on the far right, in which case I'm wrong but strengthening the case I'm about to make. In GoF, pg 158, the Slytherin table is referred to as "on the other side of the Hall" which would indicate two tables between them. Pg 154 says that HRH walked by the Slytherins, Ravenclaws and Hufflepuffs and sat down at the far side of the Hall, further adding to that layout. It could be that in the space of four books, Dumbledore decided it was prudent to put as much space between Gryffs and Slyths as possible and rearranged the tables. I'll leave it to the LOON- meisters (who have no doubt already covered this) to worry about. :) UK GoF pg 158 says: "Fred and George hissed Malcolm Baddock as he sat down." So, Malcolm was sitting down, at least two tables and probably three tables away, amidst claps and cheers around him, distracted by what was probably handshakes from his fellow Slyths, and Fred and George hiss at him. There is no evidence he even heard it. It reads like a spontaneous gesture by the Twins. I have also imagined a conversation between Draco and Malcolm, if he did hear it. Malcolm: Who are those twins hissing at me? Draco: Weasleys Malcolm: You mean Arthur Weasley's sons? Draco: Yeah, he has so many I've lost count. (something undelicate about how Arthur and Molly should practice birth control and not risk going on welfare) Malcolm: Lousy gits. Is it good behavior by the Twins? Not at all, but I also do not think we can ascribe "poor Malcolm Braddock, traumatized by the twins" either. Darrin -- Yes, it's early, and my last post was late. I HATE INSOMNIA! From lupinesque at yahoo.com Sat Aug 24 13:26:46 2002 From: lupinesque at yahoo.com (lupinesque) Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2002 13:26:46 -0000 Subject: Eagle owl redux In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43108 Once again, I weigh in on a TBAY post and sink the SCOW with my un-narrative writing style. > Dicentra scratches her head. "But if it isn't delivering that > message, what is it doing? Why mention it? Either it's SCOW fodder > or it's a FLINT. And as much as I like collecting can(n)ons for my > little barge, I'm going to bet that this one is a FLINT." [JKR] > messed up with the timeline > in the rewrites. Otherwise, there's no reason to include Owl Flies > Through Coil." It's the ultimate in bad taste to quote liberally from one's own old post, but since it's in the noble cause of saving JKR from another Flint accusation, I'll unselfishly sacrifice my good name. I wrote, in message 37881: [Cindy having asked] > >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 ) 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. I now add, here on August 24: In other words, master plotter though she is, not everything JKR does is plot-related. Sometimes she is creating atmosphere, and should not be accused of Flint production for engaging in this most literary of aims. She has "loaded" eagle owls so that they are now symbolic as well as being plot-significant. They convey character (if a new character owns one, we'll be suspicious of him/her) and mood. Amy Z -------------------------------------- Malfoy made Dudley Dursley look like a kind, thoughtful and sensitive boy. --HP and the Chamber of Secrets -------------------------------------- From drumforever at earthlink.net Sat Aug 24 14:50:33 2002 From: drumforever at earthlink.net (Betty Landers) Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2002 10:50:33 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] WANDS: Harry's vs Voldemort: Let's get this straight. References: Message-ID: <007601c24b7d$9b5cf170$45f2b23f@bettysue> No: HPFGUIDX 43109 ----- Original Message ----- From: "bboy_mn" To: Sent: Friday, August 23, 2002 9:18 PM Subject: [HPforGrownups] WANDS: Harry's vs Voldemort: Let's get this straight. boyMN: NOT TRUE! > > We have already seen Big_V put Harry under the Cruciatus curse, and > without a doubt, if Harry hadn't reacted to the AK curse, he would be > dead now. Kill by the 'brother wand' of Voldmort. > > This unique effect, of which, the prior incantatum is merely a side > effect, only occurs when they throw SIMULTANEIOUS CURSES. > > Note, earlier in the story, Harry and Draco throw simultaneous curse > and the curse hit in mid-air and are deflected off of each other. So > there is always an unusual affect when simultanious curses are thrown > against each other. > I took the curses bouncing off each other as more a product of physics. The angles were probably the same and when they collided, their direction changed--momentum and all that. A similar thing would happen if you threw too balls and they collided in midair, wouldn't it? Pick something less massive and the objects won't just fall once they collide; they'll bounce off each other and who knows where they'll end up. Betty Hard sciences, eurgh, brain taxers. From Malady579 at hotmail.com Sat Aug 24 14:48:21 2002 From: Malady579 at hotmail.com (malady579) Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2002 14:48:21 -0000 Subject: Who Framed Fred and George? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43110 >>> Dicentra wrote: >>>People have asserted that Fred and George aren't the most well-developed characters in the series, and I concur. I think they must be Toons. They function as Toons. They do things because they're funny, and for no other reason. <<< >> Melody (me) wrote: >> The only problem I find with this is that JKR loves to throw wrenches into common accepted rules of plotlines. Hence we get Black and Figg mentioned in PS/SS yet are so important in the plot, Scabbers perceived as innocent pet till PoA, I guess I cannot see Fred and George as "toon" characters because you do not give sixteen year old prank-prone wizards a 1000 galleons and expect them to just be good for comic relief. << > Dicentra then wrote: > Ah, but the fact that they may become three-dimensional later doesn't prevent them from *functioning* as Toons in Books 1-4. Harry giving them the galleons happens at the very end of GoF. They might very well become just as important as Sirius became, but that doesn't change the fact that they have been, up until now, Comic Relief. < Me again: They have been a much needed comic relief in this series, but they have also provided a line of defend for Harry. The whole Weasley family can be described as a defending family and those has show they are quite needed in the series. Each member has had opportunities to prove this fact. (Despite the fact that all of them have been in Gryffindor which helps prove this point. We have yet to met a Gryffindor that does not defend like in GoF pg 370 when all the Gryffindors are helping Hagrid with the Skrewts while all the Slytherins are in his hut.) Arthur has defended muggles at the Quidditch cup (GoF) and in his occupation (CoS, GoF), and defends his family's honor against Malfoy (CoS). Molly has defended her husband against the press after the flying car fiasco (CoS) and against Percy's mouth after the Quidditch cup (GoF). Bill has defended his father against Percy (GoF), defended his earring and hair to his mom constantly (GoF), and went after the DE's at the cup (GoF). Charlie defends the world against dragon invasion (SS/PS, GoF) and went after the DE's at the cup (GoF). Percy defends his views and Crouch with fevor (GoF) (though he is the only Weasley that defends someone else above his family, so he has singled himself out) and went after the DE's at the cup (GoF). Fred and George and many times defended Harry in school either with the Slytherin heir thing (CoS) or against Malfoy (PoA, GoF) and they also defend the Quidditch team against bludgers (Ps/SS, CoS, PoA). Ron defends his family's, Harry's, and Hermione's honor against Malfoy's cruel tongue all the time(Ps/SS, CoS, PoA, GoF) and is a great strategist (PS/SS), though it only used in book 1. And finally, Ginny defends Harry against Malfoy at the tender age of 11 (CoS). My point is, while yes JKR has not given these characters as much dimension as say Black or Crouch, she has created them with more intention than just comic relief. They are Harry's surrogate family and he is easily absorbed into them. They are his line of defense which the Dursley's are surely not. (Well the Dursley's are a line of defence but it is not because they want to be. Dumbledore must of given them a damn good reason for keeping the boy in the first place against thier will.) Fred are George are the clowns of the family, but they are also helping to bring the family into more promenance by being part of a group of good, smart wizards. The family is coming into age with the second round of Voldemort war. Arthur and Molly had a lot of babies on thier hands the first go round. It seems Arthur and Molly were not part of the Order of the Phoenix before, but now Dumbledore trusts that they (and thier family) are able to help accomplish his goals. So I guess I do agree George and Fred are a bit of toons in the first couple of books but they are also helping establish a famly that will be very vital to the destructing of evil. Melody Wondering how Bill's exploring tendencies and Charlie's dragons will come into play in the final three books From rvotaw at i-55.com Sat Aug 24 15:55:52 2002 From: rvotaw at i-55.com (Richelle Votaw) Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2002 10:55:52 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] WANDS: Harry's vs Voldemort: Let's get this straight. References: <007601c24b7d$9b5cf170$45f2b23f@bettysue> Message-ID: <000a01c24b86$ba053700$68a0cdd1@istu757> No: HPFGUIDX 43111 > boyMN: > NOT TRUE! > > > We have already seen Big_V put Harry under the Cruciatus curse, and > > without a doubt, if Harry hadn't reacted to the AK curse, he would be > > dead now. Kill by the 'brother wand' of Voldmort. > > > This unique effect, of which, the prior incantatum is merely a side > > effect, only occurs when they throw SIMULTANEIOUS CURSES. > > > Note, earlier in the story, Harry and Draco throw simultaneous curse > > and the curse hit in mid-air and are deflected off of each other. So > > there is always an unusual affect when simultanious curses are thrown > > against each other. Surely this can't happen every time simultaneous curses are thrown. Or else what would be the point of duels? Aren't the wizards *supposed* to curse each other simultaneously? I sure wouldn't want to be the one standing around waiting until I got cursed to curse someone else. In Harry and Draco's duel, Draco started on two, not waiting for the count. As Betty said this could be something to do with physics in the case of the curses deflecting each other. Maybe they were exactly in the wrong (or right for that matter) spot. Suppose Harry had aimed at Draco's head and Draco at Harry's stomach. What would've happend? Would they still deflect? However it works, I'm sure in wizard's duels they are bound to curse each other simultaneously. If they were always deflected it would be rather dangerous to watch! Richelle From jodel at aol.com Sat Aug 24 16:54:26 2002 From: jodel at aol.com (jodel at aol.com) Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2002 12:54:26 EDT Subject: What ails Neville (New Topic?) Message-ID: <1bc.be5b550.2a991442@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 43112 There have been a lot of speculations on just what is wrong with Neville Longbottom. The kid has clearly got fairly powerful magic which he is totally unable to control when he is working wandlessly (in Potions class) but, we are led to believe, doesn't ammount to much when he is using a wand. The favorite theory seems to be that he is suffering from a Memory charm gone wrong. Well the kid IS absent-minded. But I don't really buy it. I think the boy is sufferng from chronic low-level depression. He is absent minded because his attention IS absent. In his own mind he is off in some little world of his own where he isn't dragged off to a hospital every week to visit scary strangers who are determined to remain strangers. He isn't being terrorized by feckless uncles trying to make him perform magic and he isn't being bullied by his grandmother for his own good. And depression probably wouldn't help him magically either, but it wouldn't account for the problems he is having. But something else might. What if the boy was naturally left-handed? What if his grandmother (and, given wizarding lifespans, we don't know HOW many generations back she hails from) insisted that he be right-handed instead? Dyslexia doesn't happen to every child who has ever been forced to switch. But brain dominence is a messy and unpredictable thing to play around with. Forcing right-handednes upon a leftie forces the neurologic pathways to remap. When they do it sucessfully, no one notices but dyslexia is a common marker for a faulty remapping. (Note: there are other causes for dyslexia than trying to force a change in brain dominence too. Sometimes it even appears to be inherited.) Now, we have no clear indication that Nevelle shows any particular signs of classic dyslexia, but neither do we have any idea what kind of havoc remapping brain dominance can play in a brain that needs to channel magic. Could this remapping have been why it took so long for Neville's magic to break through at all? Could it have something to do with why he can't properly focus it, through a wand or otherwise? There is no indication that the Hogwarts staff was taken by surprise by Neville's incompetence at magic. If he is suffering from the magical equivalent of dyslexia they will have seen it before. (We certainly don't know whether the magical community has similar prejudices regarding left-handedness as our own grandparent's generation seems to have had, but but we certainly don't know that it doesn't! The symbolic baggage could be even heavier there.) But it would make sense that Herbology, which is hands-on, would be a subject that this form of neurological problem would not affect, enabling him to perform at his own true level. -JOdel (who was set off on this track by a 3rd-grade teacher friend ranting over one child whose remapping was so spectacularly faulty that the kid cannot even function normally on a physical level. The girl is so clumsy that she cannot even walk backwards, and forget about trying to perform academically.) From Malady579 at hotmail.com Sat Aug 24 18:11:46 2002 From: Malady579 at hotmail.com (malady579) Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2002 18:11:46 -0000 Subject: WANDS: Harry's vs Voldemort: Let's get this straight. In-Reply-To: <000a01c24b86$ba053700$68a0cdd1@istu757> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43113 boyMN: >> NOT TRUE! We have already seen Big_V put Harry under the Cruciatus curse, and without a doubt, if Harry hadn't reacted to the AK curse, he would be dead now. Kill by the 'brother wand' of Voldmort. This unique effect, of which, the prior incantatum is merely a side effect, only occurs when they throw SIMULTANEIOUS CURSES. Note, earlier in the story, Harry and Draco throw simultaneous curse and the curse hit in mid-air and are deflected off of each other. So there is always an unusual affect when simultanious curses are thrown against each other. << and Richelle wrote: > Surely this can't happen every time simultaneous curses are thrown. Or else what would be the point of duels? Aren't the wizards *supposed* to curse each other simultaneously? I sure wouldn't want to be the one standing around waiting until I got cursed to curse someone else. In Harry and Draco's duel, Draco started on two, not waiting for the count. As Betty said this could be something to do with physics in the case of the curses deflecting each other. Maybe they were exactly in the wrong (or right for that matter) spot. Suppose Harry had aimed at Draco's head and Draco at Harry's stomach. What would've happend? Would they still deflect? However it works, I'm sure in wizard's duels they are bound to curse each other simultaneously. If they were always deflected it would be rather dangerous to watch! < Me: In duels, the point of facing each other and firing at each other is the show who is the fastest and surest shot. Yes it is dangerous for those standing around because of those facts. The bullets/spells could be misguided or even clash in the air. I am not sure how big a beam of magic light is suppost to be, but I assume, which might be a big assumption, that it is as hard for them to clash as it is for bullets fired at each other. In CoS, Draco knows Harry is fast and definately faster than him. So Draco took the low brow approach of firing before the given agreed time. If in fact he had waited till three, I believe that Harry would of definately bet him to the punch and get his spell off and hit Draco before he even finished his spell. But that is my views. The question about aiming the wands differently and firing at the same time is interesting. I would like to say that it doesn't matter where you aim for a curse to work, but that is shot down easily because of the use of the wand to bind Ron's leg I assumes needs the direction and area in which it needs to bind. This might not be true though, as the wand is just pointed to the area out of human nature to direct objects like guns or tennis rackets. In the muggle world it is important that you aim to get the physical object to the right area intended. Maybe in the magic world, it is the intent behind the wand that matters. In leg-locker, does the wand need to be pointed at the leg to work or just anywhere towards to body? It seems the wand needs to be pointing at the area of the person or object the wand holders want the spell to affect and not the exact area it needs to hit. The area that a spell is intended is given in the spell. Dumbledore just "casually" waved his wand around and the tables changed into sleepingbags. He did not have to aim at all. Maybe also it is all in how we picture the beams of light coming from the wands. Assuming they are straight lines of light and of the thickness of the wand it comes from, it would seem that they would not clash that much given the small target and that the beam of light would be of the same angle of the wand it is shot. I don't know. I was not a physics or even science major it college, so this is not my specialty. It just seems that the whole point of magic is to defy these given "rules" of our physical world. Sorry if I am way off. Melody Off to bake cookies From nightngle at yahoo.com Sat Aug 24 15:21:49 2002 From: nightngle at yahoo.com (nightngle) Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2002 15:21:49 -0000 Subject: "Delicate" Harry In-Reply-To: <015601c24a4e$41aa9cc0$1e9fcdd1@istu757> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43114 "Richelle Votaw" wrote: > Madam Pomfrey: "Yes, he's all clammy. Terrible things, they are, and the effect they have on people who are already delicate--" > > Harry: "I'm not delicate!" I agree with the others who listed reasons that Harry is emotionally delicate. He also has the British "stiff upper lip" and desire to appear strong. One of the most heartbreaking scenes in GoF for me was when Mrs. Weasley is holding Harry as a mother would, and the 13 years of tears he needs to shead were welling up, ready to break free. Then the sudden noise of Hermoine catching Rita breaks the moment. Dumbledore was right that Harry needed to recollect the events in the presence of stable, mindful listeners and then to sleep. Harry also needs to cry in the arms of a caring person. To me, Harry continues to be wounded, in a way that even Fawlkes can not heal through the tears he sheads. The tears of the phoenix have seemed a symbol to me since CoS that Harry's healing needs to be through tears. "nightngle" From bdmorrp at budget.state.ny.us Sat Aug 24 19:11:56 2002 From: bdmorrp at budget.state.ny.us (erisedstraeh2002) Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2002 19:11:56 -0000 Subject: Thoughts on MAGIC DISHWASHER (WAS: Wandless!Harry - A Fatal Flaw?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43115 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "grey_wolf_c" wrote: > Grey Wolf, who will add Phyllis' idea to MAGIC DISHWASHER, and > would like to know if she wants to join, since she's already > substantially added to it. Now me: My sincere thanks for the invitation, but before making such a monumental decision, I first reviewed the entire theory which is detailed in post #40044 (as you so kindly mentioned previously). And I can safely say that while I agree with a lot of this theory (and commend those brilliant listies who came up with it), there are the following portions with which I respectfully disagree: (1) I find contradictory the conclusions that and that . If Voldemort cannot afford to let Harry grow up, why would he *intentionally* allow him to escape the graveyard, which has been his best opportunity so far to dispose of him (IMO)? I do believe that Voldemort cannot afford to let Harry grow up. I'm sorry I can't attribute this to the brilliant listie who came up with it, but I like the theory that Voldemort knew of Professor Trelawney's first accurate prediction that a boy born at a certain time (perhaps on a night when no planets were visible in the sky for an extended period of time would be his downfall. Which means I must also respectfully disagree with the conclusion. My theory is that James' ghostly self (in the corrected version of GoF) rigged the Cup to return to Hogwarts so that Harry could escape. Otherwise, how would James' ghost have known to tell Harry "you must get to the portkey, it will return you to Hogwarts..." (GoF, US hardback ed., p. 667)? Harry wouldn't have known that the Portkey was two-way, as he's had no experience to date with two-way Portkeys. James' ghost had to tell him and the priori incantatem which produced James' ghost was unplanned by Voldemort (on that, we agree!). (2) I also respectfully disagree with the conclusion. While I agree that Voldemort and Dumbledore are waging an intelligence campaign, I don't believe this was part of Voldemort's plan. If it was, Fake!Moody wouldn't have tried to kill Harry before Harry had a chance to relay the information to Dumbledore. (3) While I agree that Harry can be killed, I do not agree that he needs to be weakened first. The reason Baby!Harry resisted the AK was due to the from Lily's sacrifice. Voldemort, in Dumbledore's words, "has overcome that particular barrier" (GoF, p. 696) by using Harry's blood in his regeneration potion. I still maintain that the Cruciatus and Imperius curses Voldemort submitted Harry to in the graveyard were meant to both bolster Voldemort's ego as well as to prove to his DEs that he can completely control Harry in order to re-establish his DE power base. (4) I also respectfully disagree with the conclusion. Voldemort himself calls him "slippery" (GoF, p. 650). I think the DE march at the Quidditch World Cup and the planting of the diary were both solely Lucius' ideas. Both the DE march and the diary were aimed at hurting/humiliating Muggles. In addition, one of the goals of the diary incident was to discredit Arthur Weasley's Muggle Protection Act which Lucius opposes. IMO, while Voldemort does not like Muggles, I do not believe his main goal is to wipe out Muggles. I believe that wiping out Muggles *is* the main goal of many of his DEs, especially Lucius, and Voldemort allows them to do this as a way of keeping them loyal to him. I don't think that if Voldemort was behind Lucius' organizing of the DE march, Lucius would have run from the Dark Mark Fake!Moody shot into the sky. ~Phyllis who appreciates Grey Wolf saying that she's made a even if it's to a theory she doesn't completely support From suzchiles at pobox.com Sat Aug 24 19:17:34 2002 From: suzchiles at pobox.com (Suzanne Chiles) Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2002 12:17:34 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] HP- childrens books? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43116 Ali said: > Why then do so many consider the books for children? I hear the > phrase authorial intent. Once the books are written, it's for others > to decide what they are about, and who they are for. Well, haven't we > all decided that they are for adults? I'm not exactly sure what you meant by the last sentence, but it seems to me that Harry Potter books were meant for readers of all ages, which, for me, has a lot to do with their power and success. I do know that I wish the Harry Potter books had been published when I was a child. I know I could have greatly benefited from reading about Harry and his successes. I think I would have grown up a lot stronger and happier! Suzanne From flower_fairy12 at yahoo.co.uk Sat Aug 24 19:16:33 2002 From: flower_fairy12 at yahoo.co.uk (flower_fairy12) Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2002 19:16:33 -0000 Subject: Fred and George: The Bullies You Do Know In-Reply-To: <02eb01c24b1b$a7f18a20$4f5ffea9@cq5hs01> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43117 To be honest, I never thought of Fred & George as bullies at all. They have done some very insensitive things, like scaring Ginny in CoS, but they have always been good to Harry & even to Neville so they can't be that bad. They are just two 16 year olds, and having just left high school myself, the boys in my year would have been no different. They just need to grow up. And I'm sure F&G will do that when they leave Hogwarts. Dudley, IMO, deserved that toffee he ate. He would have done the same if he were a wizard facing a younger, vulnerable, muggle, no doubt about it. I thank Fred and George for giving him what he deserved. And Malfoy...where do I start? His comment at the end of GoF about Cedric is like a slap in the face to Harry & co. So here's the conclusion- Malfoy & Dudley are the bullies, Fred & George are not. They are (sometimes) funny, immature and they are nice to harry which is good enough for me. *Rosey* :D From heidit at netbox.com Sat Aug 24 19:43:57 2002 From: heidit at netbox.com (heiditandy) Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2002 19:43:57 -0000 Subject: HP- childrens books? In-Reply-To: <20020824121357.74578.qmail@web14909.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43118 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Kate Tanski wrote: > One of the problems I have with the denial of the HP books as > 'Children's Literature' is that most adults seem to believe that the > label 'Children's Literature' refers to a dumbed down version of adult > literature and, of course, HP is not dumbed down for children. In my > research for my HP thesis, I've come across hundreds of articles that > critically examine Children's Literature, and by no means believe it to > be less worthy of criticism than adult literature. Alice in Wonderland > is considered to be Children's Literature, yet Norton has a critically > annotated version published which examines Lewis Carroll with the same > sharpness that they examine Charlotte Bronte. Additionally, some of the > best articles on Harry Potter come from Children's Literature > magazines, although they are slowly seeping into the mainstream as more > and more people accept HP as something special. Those of us who are helping organize the Harry Potter Symposium (set for next July 17-20 in Orlando, Florida - check out http://www.hp2003.org for details) certainly have seen some of the excellent scholarship about HP from among those who specialize in children's literature in the academic arena - we even focused our first send-out of our Call For Papers (coming soon to http://www.hp2003.org/CFP) on those who have a background in childrens' literature (as well as folklorists and cultural/social experts). However, I'm one of those who think that the series, as a whole, will turn out to be more than that - and I don't mean that in a way that denigrates. childrens' literature. I'm involved in a book circle that focuses on childrens' literature (http://www.livejournal.com/~nostalgia_books) and one of the reasons I picked up the HP books almost four years ago was because I enjoy reading childrens' literature - especially the books that really transcend genres. I really do hope that this is one of the subjects we work over at the symposium next year - and if it works out that we can get someone from the NY Time Book List to come, I think Penny will be eternally happy! heidi Sponsorship Chair http://www.hp2003.org From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Sat Aug 24 20:18:08 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2002 20:18:08 -0000 Subject: Theory: the workings of a wand (Was: WANDS: Harry's vs Voldemort...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43119 Melody wrote: > In duels, the point of facing each other and firing at each other is > the show who is the fastest and surest shot. Yes it is dangerous for > those standing around because of those facts. The bullets/spells > could be misguided or even clash in the air. I am not sure how big a > beam of magic light is suppost to be, but I assume, which might be a > big assumption, that it is as hard for them to clash as it is for > bullets fired at each other. > > > > Maybe also it is all in how we picture the beams of light coming from > the wands. Assuming they are straight lines of light and of the > thickness of the wand it comes from, it would seem that they would > not clash that much given the small target and that the beam of light > would be of the same angle of the wand it is shot. > > I don't know. I was not a physics or even science major it college, > so this is not my specialty. It just seems that the whole point of > magic is to defy these given "rules" of our physical world. Sorry if > I am way off. > > Melody > Off to bake cookies I'm not going to participate in this thread directly (since I don't really see wherein does the problem lie), but nevertheless I'm going to point out that curses deflected is more common than what Melody suggests. She mentions the possibility of two curses clashing is equivalent to that of twio bullets hitting each other in midflight. This simply cannot be, unless JKR is playing *very* liberally with casualty. So far this circunstance has happened twice: a Draco/Harry clash and a Harry/Voldemort clash. Also, the books don't mention this clashes as something espectacular, or otherwise anormal. In fact, it seems downright usual, so the chance of two spells clashing should be pretty high, since the only requisite seems to be that both spells are finished at the same time, and are directed at each other's caster. I'm going to porpose a possible theory to explain what happened. According to this theory, a magical spell cast through a wand generates a beam of energy with an altered state (charged, as it were, electromagnetically). This altered state, however, is a little bit more complex than the simple positive/negative charge of electromagnetism, and it depends primarly of the composition of the wand. Especifically, it's a function of the nuclei of the wands, which makes the altered patron exclusive of each wand. This altered state of energy interacts with all other states of altered energy, normally by attracting them if they're both moving in the same approximate direction and repulsing them if moving in opposite directions (like two electrical currents repel each other if moving in the same direction and vv., only the other way round). The maginitude of this repulsion would be aproximately equal (or maybe just a little bit higher) to that of electromagnetic interation. Also, patrons /per se/ attract each other, but it's strenght depends on how close the patrons are: the more alike the patrons, the bigger the attraction between them. Where does this take us? Well, if this theory is correct, two spells whose trajectories travel close to one another will affect each other, repelling if they come from opposite sides and merging if directed towards the same objective, but there is no need that they actually hit each other: close proximity is enough (this "close proximity" could be in a range of a few centimetres up to maybe a foot or so, depending on the energy of the spell, basing myself on what canon has shown us so far). If you've survived my explanation this far (I know it sounds strange. If I was using my own language, I'd be able to explain it more clearly. Sorry), you're probably wondering why I make it so complicated. This is because this theory can be enlarged to encompass two circunstances that are very peculiar about magic. One is combined spells: we know that magical spells combine when thrown against the same target (see Draco et co in the train, end of GoF). According to this theory, the spells' energies attract each other when moving in the same direction and in fact combine into a single spell energy when in very close proximity (i.e. when about to hit). This combined energies bears the effects of both original spells, but distortioned due to the combination. In this case, the fact that the patrons attract eachother is irrelevant because most of the times the patrons will be different enough that the attraction is very small. The other circunstance is, of course, priori incantatem. According to this theory, two wands with the same nuclei (or very similar one) generate energies of almost the same patron, since their altered states are based on very similar nuclei. Normally, two energies with different directions should repel each other, throwing them out of their apointed paths, but two equal patrons attract each other more than the movement repels, thus creating a continuos path from one wand to the other. This is extremelly rare, since you need two wands with very similar nuclei (not only the same type, but also the same origin: the same especific animal or plant). Of course, once the energies have attracted each other, since they're going in opposite directions, they continue to attract each other, drawing even more energy from the wizards through the wands into the bridge conecting both wands, and creating a vicious circle. Now, the problem becomes tricky, mainly due to all the extra special effects JKR threw into the graveyard scene. The energy continues to build up in the bridge, until it starts to overflow, creating the magical energy web around the two wands (picture that image of iron dust around a magnet). However, this web, with all it's energy, is still charged with the patron of both wands, and, since it's got any amount of extra power thrown in for good measure, it still interacts with all other magical patrons in the place, and is repelled by them. This includes the magical energies that all wizards posses. This energy is normally so small that it does not affect normal spells, but the web is strong enough to be affected. However, at the very beggining the web is not strong enough to move matter, so when faced with the repulsion of all the DEs, the web moves away from them, carrying inside it the "engines": the two casters, until it finds a place where it's strenght is enough to resist the repulsion of the magical energies of the wizard on-lookers, and it continues to gain energy until it strong enough to resist the on-lookers' interferance: after while it's strong enough to repell the public that try to penetrate the net instead of it itself being repelled. Let's go back to what is happening inside the net: once the net is stablshed, the magical energy has nowhere to go, and starts to accumulate in form of energy globules inside the bridge. Since magic is formed and directed by using the will, this globules are also directed by pushing them with it: the original spells, although reduced to pure basic energy, are still moving against each other, and the caster that manages to put the most will preasure on the globules will be able to push them into the other caster's wand. At this point, the looser caster's wand is suddenly overcharged: those globules are pure magic, and they've just been forced to reenter a wand through the exit end. Of course, the bridge starts to disappear at this point, since one of the wands is no longer feeding it magic (and thus, the other also stops, since the vicious circle is broken). In fact, the loosing wand is now in big trouble, since it has to get rid of all the extra energy, and it does this by reproducing it's last spells, starting by the most recent. However, a wand is not really a wizard and these "spells" haven't the will and purpose behind them, since they are only images, pale reflections of the real ones' effects, but still require as much energy as the real things, which explains that the "ghosts" had enough raw power to stop Voldemort from persecuting Harry. OK, I think that covers all of it. I swear I didn't expect that this theory would get so out of hand. After this rant, which I just improvised, I'd imagine that there must be a few holes, but I feel quite proud of it, so if anyone wants to point out whatever holes they see in it, it'll help me to patch it. Of course, any priase and contribution is also welcomed. Hope that helps, Grey Wolf, who would be even more proud of the theory if he hadn't had to contemplate the flying net in the graveyard. That, as you may have noticed, requires quite a bit of fast talking to explain. At any rate, he'll continue to work on it. From bdmorrp at budget.state.ny.us Sat Aug 24 20:41:11 2002 From: bdmorrp at budget.state.ny.us (erisedstraeh2002) Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2002 20:41:11 -0000 Subject: Fawkes' Tail Feather in H+V's wands In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43120 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "grey_wolf_c" wrote: > I want to point out that when they speak of "Phoenix feathers", > they're probably not speaking of your everyday, wing's feather, but > of a long, beautiful feather that phoenix generally have in their > tail. This are traditionally non-regenerative. Thus, if a phoenix > loses one of them, they do not grow it back. Those where the most > powerful part of the phoenix body, too, although right now I cannot > tell you what properties those feathers were supposed to have > phoenix legends are not my strength). I seem to recall that phoenix > normally have three, but I'm nowhere sure about it, and Fawkes > could simply be a rarity. Now me: Erm...is this the same Grey Wolf who, in post #42760, said With which I agree completely, and I think the same is applicable for phoenixes. While folklore or legend or whatever may hold that phoenix feathers do not regenerate, I see nothing in canon that, at least so far, suggests that this is the case for the phoenixes in Potterverse. The phoenix entry in FB&WTFT makes no mention of non-regenerative feathers. Moreover, as JKR (a.k.a Newt Scamander) writes: "the phoenix gains a XXXX rating not because it is aggressive, but because very few wizards have ever succeeded in domesticating it" (p. 32). This suggests to me that, if few wizards can domesticate a phoenix, there are probably relatively few phoenixes around from which to obtain tail feathers for wand-making. It would seem to follow logically (IMO) that the few phoenixes that are available would have to donate more than two tail feathers to the wand-making cause. As Ollivander tells Harry, every wand "has a core of a powerful magical substance...we use unicorn hairs, phoenix tail feathers, and the heartstrings of dragons" (SS, US paperback ed., p. 84). It would seem to me that if there are only three creatures from which wand cores are obtained (in Mr. Ollivander's wands, that is), the same creature must donate more than two hairs/feathers/heartstrings. Since a unicorns is "so fleet of foot that it is very difficult to capture" (FB&WTFT p. 41), the same theory should hold for unicorn hairs as well in Potterverse. I think the fact that JKR tells us that "very few wizards have ever succeeded in domesticating" the phoenix provides additional support for my premise that Fawkes belonged to Godric Gryffindor when he was alive. But then I wonder who owned Fawkes after Gryffindor died but before Dumbledore obtained him (the Druidess Cliodna, perhaps? :) ~Phyllis From DaveH47 at mindspring.com Sat Aug 24 20:50:45 2002 From: DaveH47 at mindspring.com (Dave Hardenbrook) Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2002 13:50:45 -0700 Subject: Loyal Servant? (was: Thoughts on MAGIC DISHWASHER) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <14572739960.20020824135045@mindspring.com> No: HPFGUIDX 43121 Saturday, August 24, 2002, 12:11:56 PM, erisedstraeh2002 wrote: e> While I agree that Voldemort and Dumbledore are waging an e> intelligence campaign, I don't believe this was part of Voldemort's e> plan. If it was, Fake!Moody wouldn't have tried to kill Harry before e> Harry had a chance to relay the information to Dumbledore. Now we're back to my questions about whether Crouch was as loyal as all that... If Voldemort wants Harry to pass misinformation (*what* misinformation?? -- I can't find the post that addresses this) to Dumbledore, then Crouch's killing Harry prevents him from passing that misinfo. If V is out to prove he's stronger than Harry, then Crouch killing him himself destroys V's chance to make that point, and could potentially lead to the DE's deserting V and flocking around Crouch. So either way, I'm left wondering if Crouch was deliberately playing a double-game. -- Dave From nightngle at yahoo.com Sat Aug 24 19:48:11 2002 From: nightngle at yahoo.com (nightngle) Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2002 19:48:11 -0000 Subject: Fawkes' Tail Feather - Yin Yang symbology? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43122 Hi! I'm new to the group, and hope that all will bear with me while I gain my sea legs in the streams of thoughts here! :) This thread is near and dear to my heart, since it echos a theme that I've been thinking about since reading the first book. It's a bit lengthy... I look at Harry and Voldemort, espeically in light of the wands, being Yin/Yang to each other. An excellent summary of the yin yang symbol can be found here: http://www.chinesefortunecalendar.com/yinyang.htm Yin and Yang are not as simple as merely being "good vs bad", the duality of life isn't a list of all things good and all things bad, but rather the complimentarity that is necessary for life itself to exist. To be alive, we can't be stagnant, we have to be in a state of equilibrium; we breathe in, we breathe out - all aspects of ourselves are valuable. The schools of Hogwarts can be seen in terms of yin/yang - Slytherin, can be seen as feminine - Yin - curious, devious (in a good way ;), using intellect and cunning, resourseful, and importance of the goal) It's colors are green (healing!, posion, money - in European mythology, the green knight is one that represents the early stage of development; one who has committed to the path of enlightenment) and silver (the moon, reflective). The snake is a symbol not only of devious evil, but of rebirth (the snake sheds it's skin in a cyclical way), and is often associated with the masculine. Gryffindor, can be seen as masculine - Yang - brave, daring, direct. It's colors are red (blood, fire - warmth and the power to destroy as well are refine and transform, life, anger, the symbol for sacrifice, Mars) and gold (the sun, wealth, wholeness). The lion - brave, fierce, yet a cat is often seen to represent the feminine. Fawkes is Gryffindor's phoenix, and is a dramatic symbol of rebirth. Green and Red are complimentary to each other, as silver and gold are. In a yin/yang symbol, there is also a small circle of the opposite color in each of the fish shapes within the circle. A feminine aspect in the masculine and a masculine aspect within the feminine. We have the potential to understand each other because we have elements of the other within us. Ravenclaw, becomes the "lesser yin" the feminine within the masculine Gryffindor - clever, intelligent, . It's colors are blue (sky and sea/height and depth, representing Mary/mother, cleansing, calm, intuitive) and bronze. Symbolized by the eagle - the soul, flight, the spiritual rather than the material, soaring close to the sun. Huffelpuff, becomes the "lesser yang" - hardworking, loyal, and just. It's colors are yellow (sun, the ability to see or understand, life giving, hopeful) and black. The badger is noted for it's tenaciousness. Blue and yellow are nearly complimentary to each other, just as they have compliment with the other houses. This has been noted in other messages here as well - Harry has green eyes to Voldemort's red eyes; the red and green sparks from their respective wands - show us the complimentarity again. Each has aspects of the other within them. Why do both Harry and Voldemort have brother wands? Perhaps, they are embodiments of the Yin and Yang; and indeed it's their choices that make them good or evil. Both the phoenix and serpent being symbols of rebirth make it a pretty powerful connection, in my eyes. Yet, each aspect is needed for balance. Interesting and intreguing to me are the reactions of Dumbledore and Sirius to Voldemort using Harry's blood - it's rather ambiguous; Dumbledore flashes on a look of triumph, but then looks old and weary. We'll have to wait and see what that really means. But, perhaps, if there is a plan, it is to add "balance" to the wizarding world (sorry for the brush with a Star Wars reference - but George Lucas is highly interested in mythology as is JKR, so there will inevitably be some similarities). But what comes next? Do Harry and Voldemort cancel each other out in the end? Do they transcent duality in the final confrontation? This is a terrific article on some of the mythologic aspects of the books from a Jungian perspective. http://www.cgjungpage.org/grynbaumpotter.html Thanks for listening... Nightengale Murphy From lilac_bearry at yahoo.com Sat Aug 24 20:58:05 2002 From: lilac_bearry at yahoo.com (Lilac) Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2002 13:58:05 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [filk] Agony! Message-ID: <20020824205805.51546.qmail@web40307.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 43123 AGONY! to the tune of "Agony" from the musical INTO THE WOODS http://www.broadwaymidi.com/cgi-bin/schlabo/dl.pl?IntoTheWoods-TheSongOfTheTwoPrinces Dedicated to all those who have endured the agony of asking someone out! (The Scene: Harry has just entered the common room, where he finds Ginny comforting Ron in a distant corner.) HARRY: What's up, Ron? RON: Why did I do it? I don't know what made me do it! HARRY: What? GINNY: He -- er -- just asked Fleur Delacour to go to the ball with him. HARRY: You WHAT? RON (singing): She does entrance, that flower from France, with long, silvery-blond hair. So very becoming while getting quite chummy with Cedric Digg'ry down there. Agony! Hide me under the rug! What was I getting at? She just stared like I was a sea slug HARRY: You were right, Ron, 'bout her entrancing charm; Her grandma was Veela. Prob'ly caught blast of the charm she had cast for Cedric to feel-a. RON: (puctuating each "why" with hitting his head on the wall) Why, oh why, oh why, oh why...Agony! HARRY: She was wasting her time Diggery's going with Cho Chang That bloke's such a big slime! BOTH: Agony! HARRY: Mine's not painful as yours! I was too late to ask her for a date... Not what I'd hoped for. GINNY (trying to help them both feel better): You both are sensitive, clever, well mannered, considerate... HARRY:...Scrawny and messy-haired... RON:...Long-nosed and freckle-faced... BOTH:...Only fourteen! RON (with sarcasm): Yeah, we're "everything witches could wish for"...then why no? HARRY: Do I know? RON (with despair): They must think we're mad! HARRY: They know nothing of madness, they're not asking *us* out, We're always in doubt, screwing our courage up, They walk in packs 'round us... BOTH (hitting their heads): Why, oh why, oh why, oh why, oh why, oh why... Agony! RON: Misery! HARRY: Woe! BOTH: Oh, this stupid Yule Ball! RON: I was under her spell HARRY: I was too late, oh hell! BOTH: There's no "justice for all". Agony that can cut like a knife! So unfair, a boy's life! ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~ "Tut, tut --- hardly any of you remembered that my favorite color is *lilac*. I say so in Year with the Yeti." --Gilderoy Lockhart, COS --------------------------------- Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From judyshapiro at earthlink.net Sat Aug 24 21:19:40 2002 From: judyshapiro at earthlink.net (Judy Shapiro) Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2002 17:19:40 -0400 Subject: That Puffskein incident (was: Why I like the Twins) Message-ID: <01C24B92.6EFDA420.judyshapiro@earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 43124 Catherine posted an excellant defense of Fred and George, but then added that she was concerned about a couple of things they had done: > The Puffskein incident is not pleasant - I remember talking to > Amy about this once, when we both > hoped that Ron was joking. This probably isn't the case, > but it isn't inconceivable. Like Catherine, I see the Twins as basically well-intentioned, so I too was very bothered by the puffskein incident. (It's in Fantastic Beasts, p. 34. The margin notes read "I had one of them once." "what happened to it?" "fred used it for Bludger practice") I hope that Ron was supposed to be joking, or at the very least that Fred was young when it happened and didn't realize the puffskein would be hurt. Of course, it's also possible that the puffskein wasn't killed, that Fred simply played too rough with it and it ran away. Deliberately beating a pet to death would be an absolutely awful thing to do; it is a sign of real abnormality. Kids that torture animals often grow up to be violent towards people. I don't like the thought of JKR even joking about killing a pet. Maybe she didn't think through the implications. I should point out a possibility that I don't think has been mentioned on this thread -- maybe one of the Twins is nice and the other isn't. I know that was discussed here a few months ago. I think the claim was that Fred is evil and George is nice -- I guess that would mean Fred is George's evil twin! (Oh no -- are we going to have one of those "evil twin mistaken identity" plot lines in books 5, 6, or 7?) -- Animal Lover!Judy From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Sat Aug 24 21:21:03 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2002 21:21:03 -0000 Subject: Thoughts on MAGIC DISHWASHER (WAS: Wandless!Harry - A Fatal Flaw?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43125 Phyllis disagrees with MAGIC DISHWASHER: > (1) I find contradictory the conclusions that Harry to escape the graveyard> and that let Harry grow up>. If Voldemort cannot afford to let Harry grow up, > why would he *intentionally* allow him to escape the graveyard, which > has been his best opportunity so far to dispose of him (IMO)? I do > believe that Voldemort cannot afford to let Harry grow up. I'm sorry > I can't attribute this to the brilliant listie who came up with it, > but I like the theory that Voldemort knew of Professor Trelawney's > first accurate prediction that a boy born at a certain time (perhaps > on a night when no planets were visible in the sky for an extended > period of time would be > his downfall. You can't have everything, and Voldemort chose that which was possible. He may not be able to allow Harry to grow up, but killing the brat has been proven to be nearly impossible, after all. His plans take into consideration the fact that it may be altoghether possible that Harry cannot be killed, and his primary plan in the graveyard ("plan A") did not include killing Harry. As I've said, although Voldemort knows that Harry needs killing, he's still has a few more years before Harry becomes a real menace. Let me explain this: Plan A was, obvioulsy, his resurrection. For that purpose, he needs to be at the Riddle manor, Have Wormtail (or any other DE) with him , and to capture an enemy (Harry). Plan A goes without a single problem (for now, at any rate). Plan B: what to do with Harry. Normally, this plan would be "kill the captured enemy", but Voldemort is not as stupid as to think he can kill Harry. After all, the boy has escaped him twice already. Thus, the plan includes debilitating his enemies by feeding them false information, just in case Harry escapes again. He's going to try to kill him, but if events prove him unsuccesful again, he'll still have gained something. This comes out more or less right: Harry escapes, but takes a lot of misinformation about "divided ranks" and "lingering doubts" with him. Voldemort is now back to his old self, and he can start planning how to neutralize Harry (which may or may not include killing him). Metathinking tells us that he wont find a way, but Voldemort doesn't know that. Voldemort doesn't know he lives in a series of books called "Harry Potter". For him, his greatest enemy is still Dumbledore. And the fact is that Harry is just one person. I've said before that Voldemort was winning the war at the time of his downfall, even when Dumbledore was his oponent. Harry is just another Dumbledore in his eyes, and if the old one wasn't enough to stop him, the new one shouldn't be much better. And, as I've said, he still has a couple of years before Harry finishes his training. > Which means I must also respectfully disagree with the intentionally rigged the Triwizard Cup portkey so it would return > Harry to Hogwarts> conclusion. My theory is that James' ghostly self > (in the corrected version of GoF) rigged the Cup to return to > Hogwarts so that Harry could escape. Otherwise, how would James' > ghost have known to tell Harry "you must get to the portkey, it will > return you to Hogwarts..." (GoF, US hardback ed., p. 667)? Harry > wouldn't have known that the Portkey was two-way, as he's had no > experience to date with two-way Portkeys. James' ghost had to tell > him and the priori incantatem which produced James' ghost was > unplanned by Voldemort (on that, we agree!). Um, you seem to have missed a couple of the patches. This is no longer part of MAGIC DISHWASHER: Voldemort didn't rig the Portkey to take Harry back: Crouch!Moody wasn't able to change the destination of the Cup, which *was* a portkey designed by Dumbledore to take you to the entrance of the maze (after all, the last thing you want after winning the Triwizard Tournament is to backtrace your steps through a maze filled with dangers). Cruouch!Moody only put in an extra stop. While it's difficult to explain how could James's shadow know about this, I find it more believable that he knew Voldemort's thoughts through the use of the wand than believing that a shadow (they're not even ghosts, just images of their former selves) is able to create a portkey to an unplotable, apparition-banned place on the fly and without even concentrating on it and while stopping a very powerful wizard. > (2) I also respectfully disagree with the escape so he could feed misinformation to Dumbledore> conclusion. > While I agree that Voldemort and Dumbledore are waging an > intelligence campaign, I don't believe this was part of Voldemort's > plan. If it was, Fake!Moody wouldn't have tried to kill Harry before > Harry had a chance to relay the information to Dumbledore. You are supposing that Crouch knew Voldemort's plans. I don't think Voldemort would tell Crouch anything that he didn't need to know. After all, what he doesn't know, he can't reveal. And Voldemort knew that Crouch wouldn't want to follow with his plans if he knew he was going to let the DE go with only a small speech. Notice that Crouch is *very* vexed when Voldemort doesn't kill the lot of them. Voldemort's plans for that night don't include anything after Harry's escape. Crouch looses control there at the end in his desire to know what happened with the other DE. > (3) While I agree that Harry can be killed, I do not agree that he > needs to be weakened first. The reason Baby!Harry resisted the AK > was due to the from Lily's sacrifice. Voldemort, in > Dumbledore's words, "has overcome that particular barrier" (GoF, p. > 696) by using Harry's blood in his regeneration potion. I still > maintain that the Cruciatus and Imperius curses Voldemort submitted > Harry to in the graveyard were meant to both bolster Voldemort's ego > as well as to prove to his DEs that he can completely control Harry > in order to re-establish his DE power base. Dumbledore knows that Voldemort has managed to overcome that barrier, but he understands the barrier much better than Voldemort does. In fact, Voldemort does *not* understand what the barrier is *at all*, and he's distrustful of the potion. After all, the potion is *not* desigend to copy the love shield, it is just for re-corporating. Voldemort doesn't know if Harry is still protected from him, and he plays safe by trying out curses on him, until the danger becomes higher: when Harry even *hints* of responding, he chances the AK. > (4) I also respectfully disagree with the > conclusion. Voldemort himself calls him "slippery" (GoF, p. 650). I > think the DE march at the Quidditch World Cup and the planting of the > diary were both solely Lucius' ideas. Both the DE march and the > diary were aimed at hurting/humiliating Muggles. In addition, one of > the goals of the diary incident was to discredit Arthur Weasley's > Muggle Protection Act which Lucius opposes. IMO, while Voldemort > does not like Muggles, I do not believe his main goal is to wipe out > Muggles. I believe that wiping out Muggles *is* the main goal of > many of his DEs, especially Lucius, and Voldemort allows them to do > this as a way of keeping them loyal to him. I don't think that if > Voldemort was behind Lucius' organizing of the DE march, Lucius would > have run from the Dark Mark Fake!Moody shot into the sky. Voldemort uses muggles for the same purpose he uses eveyone else: they're a mean to an end: a way to terrorize the population into submission. So, killing muggles is, in fact, one of his ideas. I don't think he encourages independent though between his DEs, and he could do without the muggles (he hates all the muggles because of his father's actions). Don't believe anything Voldemort says in the graveyard, either (I assume that page 650 is the graveyard. My GoF *hasn't* 650 pages. Please quote chapters, not page numbers), since he's misinforming. And MAGIC DISHWASHER doesn't have to say that Voldemort organizes the DE march in the championship: the comunication could've started *after* the world cup (this was also patched after Pip exposed the basic teory, IIRC). > ~Phyllis > who appreciates Grey Wolf saying that she's made a contribution,> even if it's to a theory she doesn't completely > support The offer is still open, to you and to anyone who finds this theory believable. Of course, the Safe House is always open to anyone who wants to develop it's own version of the Dumbledore-Voldemort information war, or any other conspiration/spy game theory. Hope that helps, Grey Wolf From bard7696 at aol.com Sat Aug 24 21:33:02 2002 From: bard7696 at aol.com (darrin_burnett) Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2002 21:33:02 -0000 Subject: That Puffskein incident (was: Why I like the Twins) In-Reply-To: <01C24B92.6EFDA420.judyshapiro@earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43126 Judy wrote, quoting Catherine: --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Judy Shapiro wrote: > Catherine posted an excellant defense of Fred and George, > but then added that she was concerned about a couple of > things they had done: > > > The Puffskein incident is not pleasant - I remember talking to > > Amy about this once, when we both > > hoped that Ron was joking. This probably isn't the case, > > but it isn't inconceivable. > It's not inconceivable that Fred was joking about doing it in the first place, either. > > I should point out a possibility that I don't think has been mentioned on > this thread -- maybe one of the Twins is nice and the other isn't. I know > that was discussed here a few months ago. I think the claim was that Fred > is evil and George is nice -- I guess that would mean Fred is George's evil > twin! (Oh no -- are we going to have one of those "evil twin mistaken > identity" plot lines in books 5, 6, or 7?) There is a nice little essay on the Lexicon about George Weasley and how good a heart he seems to have. I'm not sure Fred is evil, but I appreciate JKR giving us at least a few things to tell them apart. The evil twin thing got me thinking though... except for the scene in PS where F&G play around with Molly a little bit -- one of the scenes that translated pretty well to the movie, by the way -- the twins apparently avoid the obvious prank - switching places. Perhaps our boys are just too clever for something so mundane? Darrin -- Maybe it was George who was dancing with Angelina? From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Sat Aug 24 22:35:16 2002 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (bboy_mn) Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2002 22:35:16 -0000 Subject: WANDS: Harry's vs Voldemort: Reply to All In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43127 BBOY_MN who once upon a midnight dreary, did ponder weak and weary: --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "bboy_mn" wrote > Maybe I'm just reacting to a figure of speak, or to a context > that I don't recognise, but soooooo may people speak as if the > Big_V/Little_H brother wands mean that Harry and Voldemort can't > fight or harm each other. > > NOT TRUE! > > We have already seen Big_V put Harry under the Cruciatus curse, > and without a doubt, if Harry hadn't reacted to the AK curse, he > would be dead now. Kill by the 'brother wand' of Voldmort. > > This unique effect, of which, the prior incantatum is merely a > side effect, only occurs when they throw SIMULTANEIOUS CURSES. > > Note, earlier in the story, Harry and Draco throw simultaneous > curse and the curse hit in mid-air and are deflected off of each > other. So there is always an unusual affect when simultanious > curses are thrown against each other. > > Once again, the brother want effect, which in turn produces the > separate prior incantatum effect, only occurs when 'brother wands' > throw simultanious curse against each other. > > That's my story and I'm sticking to it. > > bboy_mn bboy_mn commnets to Richelle #43111: The odds of true 'simultaneous' spell casting is slim. Think of cowboy gunfighters, one always draws first and one always shoots first, and more important, the one who draws first is not alway the one who shoots first. You did bring up another point that I didn't dwell on, partly because I thought it was a given. That is the two spell DO have to collide in mid-air; full force direct head-on impact. So in my book, both timing and direction must be precise which makes the likelihood very small. Just as a clarification note: the duel I was referring to between Draco and Harry occurred in the hallway outside potions. This is the one that caused Hermione's teeth to enlarge. The spell collided in the air and were deflected, which caused them to hit innocent by-standers. I also, later upon thinking about it, took this as JKR's introduction in which she planted the seed in our minds regarding the unusual effects of simultaneous spells colliding. bboy_mn respond to Grey Wolf #43119: WOW! ....uuuuuuuuu...... Improvised; right of the top of your head you say. COOL! I'm impress, very good analysis. I suppose we might find some holes in it if we try, but overal, I would say an excellent techincal analysis of the effect. I would suspect that there is a certain common resonance or harmony in the energy that is cast from the same tail feathers that causes them to merge. An effect that would not be the same, simply by using two pheonix feathers against each other. The fact that the feathers are from the same pheonix is absolutely critical. bboy_mn concludes (please hold the applause until after I'm finished, thank you): Regardless of the technical details, the point is that, while this brother effect, of which I say Prior Incantatum is only a side effect, does give Harry some edge and some protection (which it also gives Big_V), it doesn't stop them from fighting, cursing, or killing each other. I DO suspect that the is more to the Brother Effect than we have been told so far, but it still doesn't prevent V and H from cursing or killing each other. That's my story and I'm sticking to it. bboy_mn From oppen at cnsinternet.com Sun Aug 25 00:01:59 2002 From: oppen at cnsinternet.com (Eric Oppen) Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2002 19:01:59 -0500 Subject: Fred and George...riding for a fall? Message-ID: <014d01c24bca$a32fefe0$3287aa41@hppav> No: HPFGUIDX 43128 Although I rather enjoy the Twins' pranks, in some ways, it's largely because I can understand why they go after the people they do. However, I have a dark theory that JKR is setting them up...that, one of these fine days, one of their pranks is going to go Horribly Wrong...and then nobody will be laughing. A lot of their joke thing-a-ma-jigs involve magic; are they necessarily such competent wizards as to be _sure_ that nothing "can go wrong...go wrong...go wrong..."? They take a lot of chances (flying the Ford Anglia in to get Harry out; I'm sure there could have been another way to crack him out of there, just for one example) and sooner or later they're going to reach into their wizard's hats and pull out rabbit scat instead of a rabbit. Or their pranks could end up biting _them_ in the behind. Imagine the looks on their faces when they're facing a bunch of ravening Death Eaters, and find out that they picked up the wrong wands, so that their wands turn into joke animals at the worst possible time. From meboriqua at aol.com Sun Aug 25 00:37:42 2002 From: meboriqua at aol.com (jenny_ravenclaw) Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2002 00:37:42 -0000 Subject: Fred and George: The Bullies You Do Know In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43129 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "flower_fairy12" wrote: > Dudley, IMO, deserved that toffee he ate. He would have done the same if he were a wizard facing a younger, vulnerable, muggle, no doubt about it. I thank Fred and George for giving him what he deserved.> I can't lie and say I didn't squirm with delight when I first read the scene where the twins dropped the Ton-Tongue Toffees all over the floor; the anticipation of what was to come made me laugh out loud. However, does that mean I think Dudley deserved to experience what he did? Maybe. Does that mean that I think it was Fred and George's place to cause such an experience? No, I don't. What makes me uncomfortable about that scene is two outsiders coming into the Dursleys' home and taking matters into their own hands. I don't like it. I love that the twins want to protect Harry, but it would be much more satisfying as well as justified if Harry was the one who stood up to Dudley (and I believe JKR has mentioned that this will happen). I don't like expressions like "he got what he deserved" or "it's her fault she was attacked", because it is placing responsibility on the wrong person. We all know Dudley is a vile and disgusting character and I would hope by now that people agree with me when I say that his parents have taught him every single behavior he has displayed so far. However, Fred and George used a bit of "vigilante justice" with those Ton-Tongue Toffees (as well as used Dudley as an experiment). They were out of line. Had Harry developed and dropped those candies on the floor, I might feel differently. --jenny from ravenclaw *************************** From bard7696 at aol.com Sun Aug 25 01:08:51 2002 From: bard7696 at aol.com (darrin_burnett) Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2002 01:08:51 -0000 Subject: Fred and George: The Bullies You Do Know In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43130 Jenny wrote: > I don't like expressions like "he got what he deserved" or "it's her > fault she was attacked", because it is placing responsibility on the > wrong person. We all know Dudley is a vile and disgusting character > and I would hope by now that people agree with me when I say that his > parents have taught him every single behavior he has displayed so far. > However, Fred and George used a bit of "vigilante justice" with those > Ton-Tongue Toffees (as well as used Dudley as an experiment). They > were out of line. Had Harry developed and dropped those candies on > the floor, I might feel differently. > First, I think the connection between "he got what he deserved" and "it's her fault she was attacked" is faulty. The latter is typically used in describing a rape victim. I do not know if that is the connotation you are trying to put forward, but if so, it is quite unfair. Dudley is not an innocent victim. We have it from Fred and George's own words. They pulled the prank because he is a "great bullying git." And as you point out, it was an experiment. I don't deny that Fred and George were dying to see if their creation worked. The bully got a little comeuppance. He DID get what was coming to him. I revolt against the idea that Dudley's misfortune is equivalent to an innocent victim's, and especially against the connotation of a rape victim. They simply are not the same things. I too look forward to seeing Harry stand up to Dudley. But the fact remains, Dudley is much, much bigger than Harry and could still pound Harry into meat jelly. And since Harry can't use magic while at the Dursleys (and the Dursleys know this) he can't use his wand to even the odds. Until Harry hits the Hogwarts weight room, it is going to take bigger kids like Fred and George (or maybe Ron, who is physically bigger than Harry) to do this. Darrin -- Sometimes vigilante justice is the only justice From foxmoth at qnet.com Sun Aug 25 02:33:59 2002 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2002 02:33:59 -0000 Subject: That Puffskein incident (was: Why I like the Twins) In-Reply-To: <01C24B92.6EFDA420.judyshapiro@earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43131 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Judy Shapiro wrote: > Catherine posted an excellant defense of Fred and George, > but then added that she was concerned about a couple of > things they had done: > > > The Puffskein incident is not pleasant - I remember talking to > > Amy about this once, when we both > > hoped that Ron was joking. This probably isn't the case, > > but it isn't inconceivable. > > > Like Catherine, I see the Twins as basically well-intentioned, so I too was very bothered by the puffskein incident. (It's in Fantastic Beasts, p. 34. > The margin notes read "I had one of them once." "what happened to it?" "fred used it for Bludger practice") I hope that Ron was supposed to be joking, or at the very least that Fred was young when it happened and didn't realize the puffskein would be hurt. Of course, it's also possible > that the puffskein wasn't killed, that Fred simply played too rough with it and it ran away. > We don't know that the puffskein *was* hurt. Magical animals, like magical humans, could be unnaturally and/or supernaturally resilient. Maybe after that incident Molly and Arthur simply decided their home was not a suitable environment for a puffskein and found it a better one. That would have been a good lesson for the Twins and Ron, too. animal and twin loving Pippin From rvotaw at i-55.com Sun Aug 25 02:53:30 2002 From: rvotaw at i-55.com (Richelle Votaw) Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2002 21:53:30 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Harry's emotions (was Re: "Delicate" Harry) References: Message-ID: <001001c24be2$99092280$52a1cdd1@istu757> No: HPFGUIDX 43132 Nightngle wrote: > I agree with the others who listed reasons that Harry is emotionally > delicate. He also has the British "stiff upper lip" and desire to > appear strong. > > One of the most heartbreaking scenes in GoF for me was when Mrs. > Weasley is holding Harry as a mother would, and the 13 years of tears > he needs to shead were welling up, ready to break free. Then the > sudden noise of Hermoine catching Rita breaks the moment. Mmm, probably my single favorite and least favorite scene in GoF. Favorite because I wanted so badly for Harry to have that much needed hug, and least favorite because it was interrupted before he broke through emotionally. Which leads me to believe that something worse yet will happen (obviously!) that will cause Harry to break down emotionally. I don't mean a nervous breakdown, just an emotional overload. > Dumbledore was right that Harry needed to recollect the events in the > presence of stable, mindful listeners and then to sleep. Harry also > needs to cry in the arms of a caring person. To me, Harry continues > to be wounded, in a way that even Fawlkes can not heal through the > tears he sheads. The tears of the phoenix have seemed a symbol to me > since CoS that Harry's healing needs to be through tears. Healing through tears, like the phoenix, I'd never thought of it that way. I like that. I can't really see Harry crying in anybody's arms but Molly Weasley. I don't think there's anyone else (female) he trusts enough, and it's just not a scene I can imagine without a woman's touch! But what will be the one thing to push Harry's emotions over the edge? The first thing that comes to mind is Hagrid. If something happens to Hagrid, it would bring a rush of emotion and depending on the surroundings might be enough to send Harry into a flood of tears that have been bottled up for 14+ years. If Hagrid were to die, I'm trying to think of way that would put Molly Weasley telling Harry about it. I suppose if Harry were with the Weasleys at their house at the time (end of summer? Christmas even?) Dumbledore would want Harry to know before he got to Hogwarts Express and heard it through the grape vine. Yet it wouldn't be right to just send an owl directly to Harry. After all, Hagrid was the first person from the WW Harry encountered (old enough to know anyway), his first friend, gave him his first real birthday present, first birthday cake, etc. So maybe Dumbledore would send a message to Molly, and she in turn would tell Harry. And that would be enough to break the emotional dam that's been building up since he was a baby. I know, I know, I've written off poor old Hagrid again. Sorry about that. Richelle From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Sun Aug 25 04:02:26 2002 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (bboy_mn) Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2002 04:02:26 -0000 Subject: Odds & Ends: Phoenix Tears & Family Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43133 Odds & Ends Richelle: (&Nightngle) "Healing through tears, like the phoenix, I'd never thought of it that way. I like that. I can't really see Harry crying in anybody's arms but Molly Weasley. I don't think there's anyone else (female) he trusts enough, and it's just not a scene I can imagine without a woman's touch!" "Healing through tears, like the phoenix..." That is a beautiful thought, very symbolic and very appropriate. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Off on a tangent, related to phoenix, in GoF when Harry is in Dumbledore's office, just before he starts telling Dumbledore what happened, Harry is kind of out of it, in shock. Then Fawkes flies down and lands on Harry's lap (short version), Dumbledore asks Harry to talk, there is a loud squawk, and Harry feels something warm trickle down his throat. That 'something warm' is never specifically defined. How many people are like me, and assumed that 'something warm' was a phoenix tear? - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - File this under 'What are the odds?": Try this on for size; Harry James Weasley-Potter. What are the odds that the Weasleys will officially adopt Harry as a member of their family? I think it has to be incredibly hard to be an orphan; to be completely detached from the world, to not truly be a part of anyone or anything; a house but never a home, always a guest and never a member, always among people but never part of them. You can say that the Weasleys are LIKE a family to Harry. But he is really tied to them though his friendship with their kids. And it's a reality of life that even the very best of friends eventually part ways. That doesn't mean the friendship dissolves, but they eventually do go their separate ways in life. It has to be hard on a person to be that isolated and unattached. Since 'like a family' lacks any assured permanents, no matter how close he feels to them, there is always going to be an element of isolation, an element of separation. Personally, I can envision the Weasleys officially/legally adopting Harry near the end of the book. Which is a very nice thought, but that thought is also clouded by the possibility that they will adopt him to replace (in a sense) a son that is lost in the new Voldemort wars. With or without the death of a Weasley son, Harry would now have a permanent family, and a place he could always call home. You could say that if he married Ginny he would become a member of the family, but a nasty thing called divorce can undo that membership very quickly, but no one ever been UN-adopted. While this is not directly related to specific events in the book; indirectly, we see Harry becoming a member of the Weasley family. So the question is, how far will this process go? Will it go all the way to Harry becoming a real member of the family? Think about it, the book begins with Harry living a horrible life with (so called) family who treat him like dirt, and at the end of the book, Harry is finally part of a wonderful loving family. Seems like very nice closure. Just some thought. bboy_mn From angiebebb at hotmail.com Sun Aug 25 04:45:10 2002 From: angiebebb at hotmail.com (kittycatta) Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2002 04:45:10 -0000 Subject: Odds and Ends: Pheonix Tears Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43134 bboy_mn ventured: <<<<>>>>>>>> Well, I must say I hadn't assumed that. I had assumed that the "soft, quavering note" emitted by Fawkes was what had strengthened Harry. I'm wondering if this is just another case of bad translation on the part of whomever is responsible for that. My canon comes from the American paperback edition of GoF. I'll still have to snip the stuff from when Fawkes landed on Harry's knee and to the quavering note part, because it's not relevant to this point. ""There was a soft rush of wings. Fawkes the phoenix had left his perch, flown across the office, and landed on Harry's knees. "'Lo, Fawkes, " said Harry quietly. He stroked the phoenix's beautiful scarlet and gold plumage. Fawkes blinked peacefully up at him. There was something comforting about his warm weight. The phoenix let out one soft, quavering note. It shivered in the air, and Harry *felt as though* a drop of hot liquid had slipped down his throat into his stomach, warming him, and strengthening him."" The emphasis on *felt as though* is mine. It's a metaphor. Nothing really slipped down Harry's throat, it just seemed that way. FB&WTFT had something about the call (or cry, or whatever, I don't have that book) of the phoenix being strengthening to the pure of heart, which would apply to Harry, unless you're of the opinion he's ever-so-evil :) So, unless the translators have messed up the context AGAIN, it appears (to me, at least) that what strengthened Harry was a phoenix call, not a tear. --Angie -The hardest part of one of these posts is coming up with a tagline :) From grega126 at aol.com Sun Aug 25 06:31:38 2002 From: grega126 at aol.com (greg_a126) Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2002 06:31:38 -0000 Subject: Cho's possible betrayal? In-Reply-To: <20020824051435.38082.qmail@web40304.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43135 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Lilac wrote: > What if Cho betrays Harry to Voldemort out of revenge for Cedric's death? She is very vulnerable right now, and could probably be very easily manipulated by the dark side to help them get to the person who "brought" Cedric to the graveyard. We all know what really happened and that Harry is not to blame, but everybody else knows just what Dumbledore told them...that Cedric was killed by Voldemort. How hard would it be for Lucias Malfoy, or some other DE who might be from Ravenclaw (they *can* be from other houses, you know, like Pettigrew from Gryffindor) to tell her some tall-tale of how Harry jumped behind Cedric to miss being hit by the AK, or that he knew that the cup was a portkey, or any other story, just to get her to do what they want? > > And what *would* they want? For Cho to get close to Harry, gain his trust (and even love) and take a trip off Hogwart's grounds (perhaps to Hogsmeade through one of the tunnels), where he wouldn't be under Dumbledore's and Hogwart's protection. First, if this were to happen, I can't see JKR doing it w/o at least allowing Cho to redeem herself. But that being said, what really do we know about Cho? That she's cute, plays Quiddich & dated Cedric. Which is why I've always been mystified by all of the H/Cho out there, there have been plenty of girls in my past that I thought were put on the earth specifically for me, until our first conversation at which point I promptly moved on to the next one. I mean, to our knowledge, Harry's never even had a single conversation with the girl. But secondly, would Harry, whom I believe to have a great sense of personal responsibility ever allow himself to date the exgirlfriend of a now dead school mate? But I do think if Cho came up & told him she wanted to talk about exactly what happened in that graveyard, but didn't want to do it where anyone could hear, could he meet her in the Three Broomsticks that at Harry's first chance he would be headed off to that witch w/ the hump. Greg From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Sun Aug 25 07:26:36 2002 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (bboy_mn) Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2002 07:26:36 -0000 Subject: Odds and Ends: Pheonix Tears In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43136 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "kittycatta" wrote: > bboy_mn ventured: > <<<< in Dumbledore's office, just before he starts telling Dumbledore > what happened, Harry is kind of out of it, in shock. Then Fawkes > flies down and lands on Harry's lap (short version), Dumbledore > asks Harry to talk, there is a loud squawk, and Harry feels > something warm trickle down his throat. That 'something warm' is > never specifically defined. > > How many people are like me, and assumed that 'something warm' > was a phoenix tear? >>>>>>>>> > KittyCatta replies: > Well, I must say I hadn't assumed that. I had assumed that > the "soft, quavering note" emitted by Fawkes was what had > strengthened Harry. I'm wondering if this is just another case > of bad translation on the part of whomever is responsible for that. > My canon comes from the American paperback edition of GoF. > > ....Edited.... > > The phoenix let out one soft, quavering note. It shivered in the > air, and Harry *felt as though* a drop of hot liquid had slipped > down his throat into his stomach, warming him, and strengthening > him."" > > The emphasis on *felt as though* is mine. It's a metaphor. > Nothing really slipped down Harry's throat, it just seemed that > way. > ...edited... > So, unless the translators have messed up the context AGAIN, it > appears (to me, at least) that what strengthened Harry was a > phoenix call, not a tear. > > --Angie > -The hardest part of one of these posts is coming up with a > tagline :) boy_mn Responds: I'm using the American addition too. You quote it exactly as I read it. In my post I was paraphrasing; I wasn't quoting. I was just trying to give enough of a reference so people would know what part of the book I was talking about. I would never/should never/could never argue with your interpretation, but I took the 'felt as though' to be a reflection of Harry's state of mind and his general 'in shock' condition. More along this line: He was completely unfocused, exhausted, in shock, and he felt something go down his throat. He didn't know what it was or where it came from but it "felt as though* a drop of hot liquid had slipped down his throat...". In a sense, we aren't being given an account of events but an interpretation of event. Since the interpretation has an element of uncertainty, it 'felt as though'. Again, I'm not insisting that my version is right. The reason I asked is that I do have some confusion around the point. I was trying to get other people's opinion to see how consistent they were with how I read it. Sort of taking a survey. bboy_mn From grega126 at aol.com Sun Aug 25 09:45:13 2002 From: grega126 at aol.com (greg_a126) Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2002 09:45:13 -0000 Subject: Wandless!Harry - A Fatal Flaw?/Fawkes' Tail Feather in H+V's wands In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43137 I have a lot of problems w/ the whole, "Voldemort let Harry escape on purpose" theory, but basically it comes down to this: --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "grey_wolf_c" wrote: > Phyllis wrote: > Voldemort can hope he'll kill the brat, but he's not going to suffer if > he escapes again. It doesn't loom to big. After all, his real eney is > Dumbledore, and last time, it was easy to beat him. If Harry grows to > be another Dumbledore, it still won't be enough to stop him from taking > over the WW once again. Yes, we all know, because we're following Harry's life, that he's not even the best wizard in his class when it comes to that sort of thing. But that's not what Harry Potter means to the WW. Harry Potter is a symbol. He, when he was a little over 1 year old, defeated the worst dark lord in over 100 years. A dark lord so terrible that nearly 15 years later people are still afraid to say his name. For all of a wizard's advantages in their daily life, they are an incredibly backwards culture, stuck in the middle ages. There have been bad men in the Muggle world too. But none of them has ever been referred to as "You-Know-Who". Joseph Stalin for example, killed 25 million of his own citizens, had a ton of nuclear weapons to kill millions more if he so desired, yet no one ever called him You-Know-Who. So what does that mean? These people are absolutely terrified. Harry Potter is the reason many of them are going to fight. If Harry's dead body had been sent to the Daily Prophet, w/ a little note on it from Lord Voldemort, I think a ton of them just would've given up. But now that he's escaped, he's Harry Potter, the Boy-Who- Lived, the Tri-Wizard champion, and one of the few people who has ever escaped the Dark Lord's wrath & he's now done it 3 times. But most important of all, he's the Boy-Who's-Living. Voldemort can't take over the WW until Harry & Dumbledore are both dead. Until then, he can be a royal pain, but he can't rule. Once they're both dead, he's the Minister of Magic until he dies. He knows that. He knows that as long as Harry is alive, there are always going to be people who oppose him. Why bother to send a tiny little bit of disinformation via Harry, when there are so many other ways to do it. Snape for instance, is almost certain to at least try & take up his spying post again. It'd take a few weeks to send everything via Snape, at most, and then the deed would be done, but Harry would be dead. The other thing, "After all, his real eney is Dumbledore, and last time, it was easy to beat him." I don't think that's true at all. If it was, why didn't he? I think the best that either could do would be hurt each other enough that they'd both die. The fact that Dumbledore is probably the only wizard alive who would have a chance at killing him is enough to keep Voldemort away until he's sure of his immortality. At the same time, Dumbledore is aware of his importance to the good guys, and isn't willing to get into a fight that may lead to his death, but not Voldemort's and the good guys would lose the war. Greg From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Sun Aug 25 10:41:25 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2002 10:41:25 -0000 Subject: MAGIC DISHWASHER (Was: Re: Wandless!Harry - A Fatal Flaw?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43138 Greg wrote: > I have a lot of problems w/ the whole, "Voldemort let Harry escape > on purpose" theory, but basically it comes down to this: > > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "grey_wolf_c" wrote: > > Phyllis wrote: > > Voldemort can hope he'll kill the brat, but he's not going to > suffer if > > he escapes again. It doesn't loom to big. After all, his real eney > is > > Dumbledore, and last time, it was easy to beat him. If Harry grows > to > > be another Dumbledore, it still won't be enough to stop him from > taking > > over the WW once again. > > Yes, we all know, because we're following Harry's life, that he's > not even the best wizard in his class when it comes to that sort of > thing. But that's not what Harry Potter means to the WW. Harry > Potter is a symbol. He, when he was a little over 1 year old, > defeated the worst dark lord in over 100 years. A dark lord so > terrible that nearly 15 years later people are still afraid to say > his name. > > So what does that mean? These people are absolutely terrified. > Harry Potter is the reason many of them are going to fight. If > Harry's dead body had been sent to the Daily Prophet, w/ a little > note on it from Lord Voldemort, I think a ton of them just would've > given up. But now that he's escaped, he's Harry Potter, the Boy-Who- > Lived, the Tri-Wizard champion, and one of the few people who has > ever escaped the Dark Lord's wrath & he's now done it 3 times. But > most important of all, he's the Boy-Who's-Living. Do you really believe they will fight? Even with Harry Potter on their side? I am not one of the Fudge Is Evil defenders. To me, he's the perfect example of the typical WW wizard, and he's not willing to fight against Voldemort. Nor are many of the wizard and witches, which is why Dumbledore has that group of people he *knows* he can trust. Notice that, so far, the only people who don't call Voldemort "you know who" have happened to be part of the "old gang", and the only ones willing to fight him. Don't think that the wizard world are willing to fight becuse of Harry: they're still very much afraid of Voldemort, and the fact that one boy is protected from him doen't put *them* in any better situation. Their families are still easy objectives and their powers are not strong enough to fight him. Like last time, Voldemort will be able to put the entire WW on its knees by a few careful comited attrocities. > Voldemort can't take over the WW until Harry & Dumbledore are both > dead. Until then, he can be a royal pain, but he can't rule. Once > they're both dead, he's the Minister of Magic until he dies. He > knows that. He knows that as long as Harry is alive, there are > always going to be people who oppose him. Why bother to send a tiny > little bit of disinformation via Harry, when there are so many other > ways to do it. Snape for instance, is almost certain to at least > try & take up his spying post again. It'd take a few weeks to send > everything via Snape, at most, and then the deed would be done, but > Harry would be dead. But he *can* rule the WW with both Dumbledore and Harry still alive. Let's take this to the limit: Voldemort kills everyone that oposes him except H&D: He gets to rule the WW, even if they still exist. Truth is, Dumbledore is not in a position of political authority, and he has never wanted to be. It's comendable, and a strong defensive position, but it means that Voldemort can take over the MoM, put someone he trust at the top, and reduce Dumbledore's side to a resistance movement. And if that happens, Voldemort will have won the war, because no war can *ever* be won from a hit-and-run position. And the fact is that the situation is ripe for Voldemort's plans: the MoM is in the hands of a bunch of incompetent paper-shufflers who are so scared of Voldemort that they refuse to admit his existance. Fudge is going to make an ass of himself when he publicly declares that Voldemort has not made a comeback (after Voldemort starts those constructive attrocities I mentioned before). Of course, evidence will just pile up, and when Cornelius is shown to be an absolute incompetent, the masses will ask for a new minister. At this point, I'd say that there would be three candidates: Dumbledore, who won't want to, Arthur, who's not powerful enough, and Lucius Malfoy, a very powerful and influential man, an authentic political machine. And if (when) Lucius wins the election*, Voldemort will have gotten his hands in the WW through the use of a puppet ruler. I'm not saying that this is Voldemort's plans, but it *could* be: deposing the current authority and putting your prefered one is the easiest and fastest way to rise to power, and in this case is, as I've said, ripe for such sort of plan. > The other thing, "After all, his real eney is Dumbledore, and last > time, it was easy to beat him." I don't think that's true at all. > If it was, why didn't he? I think the best that either could do > would be hurt each other enough that they'd both die. The fact that > Dumbledore is probably the only wizard alive who would have a chance > at killing him is enough to keep Voldemort away until he's sure of > his immortality. At the same time, Dumbledore is aware of his > importance to the good guys, and isn't willing to get into a fight > that may lead to his death, but not Voldemort's and the good guys > would lose the war. > > Greg But he *did* beat him. By all acounts, at the time of his sudden downfall, Voldemort had managed to almost take over the WW. About the only thing that was stopping him was the measures that Crouch Sr. took: making the Aurors as bad as the DEs, which allowed for a brutal repression of civil rights. This, of course, is *not* a long lasting way of beating Voldemort, since they were playing right into his hands by increasing the paranoia and sense of insecurity, but these sort of things have been used before in RL because they *do* have resuls at short span. Voldemort was, at that point, about to win by letting the social structure fall around the MoM's ruins. Social breakdown is another great way of grasping power (check the French revoultion or the Russian revolution, and how they both ended twith a supreme ruler of dictatorial qualities, which is what Voldemort really wants). I don't know what Dumbledore's plans were at that time, but whatever they were, they weren't being effective. They were probably long-range plans, though. I think that the Potters were involved in a big part of that plan, and it must have been a good plan, since Voldemort risked a lot by going himself to eliminate Harry and James (even more, since we know he was almost destroyed). And finally, I repeat the basic of Voldemort's reasoning to let Harry leave: While it is true that he probably needs to kill the boy, he has still got three years more before Harry finishes his training (and from Voldemort's PoV, probably even a few years more. If I was Voldemort, I'd hardly expect Dumbledore to send Harry against me at the immediate end of his training). In the graveyard, he has just been resurrected. Voldemort has won that battle. The enemy flees, and takes a lot of misinformation with him. He has won *that* battle too. The victory could've been more complete, surely, but you cannot expect to win *all* the battles in a war. And, as I've said, even if Harry is killed, Dumbledore is still alive, so things wouldn't have changed that much, from Voldemort's PoV. I don't think he realizes that Harry will be his ultimate destruction. Harry's a problem that he'll have to take care off, but the Graveyard is a good victory for his side. Not all battles finish with the anihilation of the enemy. In fact, most of them finishes with the enemy running in fear. And Voldemort managed just that. >From a historical poerspective, in fact, Voldemort's record is getting better: The first time, he was nearly destroyed and was laid low for ten years. The second time, his vessel was destroyed, but he managed to find out a lot of information while being undercover in his enemies camp for a year, and only lies low for a couple of years. This third time, is Harry the one who is nearly destroyed and the one who runs away with a lot of misinformation, while Voldemort has once again been able to leech out a considerable amount of information (which of course might just be misinformation) by having a loyal servant camped in Hogwarts for a year, and one that looks like an auror, so would have every reason to ask abvout Dumbledore's plans, too. Hope that helps, Grey Wolf *There is a theory based on foreshadowing in the list that says that Lucius (Malfoy) will follow Cornelius (Fudge) because the Pope Cornelius was substituted by the Pope Lucius. I don't really like it, but it fits my theory well. From meboriqua at aol.com Sun Aug 25 12:52:55 2002 From: meboriqua at aol.com (jenny_ravenclaw) Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2002 12:52:55 -0000 Subject: Dudley the Victim In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43139 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "darrin_burnett" wrote: > First, I think the connection between "he got what he deserved" > and "it's her fault she was attacked" is faulty. > > The latter is typically used in describing a rape victim. I do not > know if that is the connotation you are trying to put forward, but if so, it is quite unfair.> Actually Darrin, if I believe Dudley is a victim, than my opinion is not faulty. You really need to watch the way you express yourself here and find ways to disagree with others that aren't so... fautly. I never said Dudley was an innocent victim, but he is a victim nonetheless. He is as much a target of his parents' abuse as Harry is, but obviously he is suffering in other ways. Here in the States there have been cases where parents have been accused of and found guilty of abuse because they have young children who are obese. Wouldn't you say that is the case with Dudley? He doesn't have a gland problem; his parents feed him constantly. They never say no. He has only been given boundaries because his school nurse had a chat with Vernon and Petunia, and my guess is she told them that his weight could kill him at a young age. Kids who kick their own parents, scream their brains out at any opportunity, break all of their toys and then get all new ones are not being raised in a loving and protective environment. Dudley is being taught that he will always get what he wants, and that is wrong. He will not do well out in the real world when his parents aren't there to pick up after him. At the rate he is going, Dudley will end up a 45 year old who still lives with Mommy and Daddy, doesn't work to support himself and has no family or friends of his own to care about. Dudley is awful. He is rude, hideous to look at, not particularly intelligent and has a mean streak as long as the Grand Canyon. He is not innocent because he is perfectly aware of how nasty he is to Harry. However, he didn't become this way in a vacuum. I'd say the real "great bullying gits" here are his parents, and Fred and George know they wouldn't get away with dropping Ton-Tongue Toffees at Vernon and Petunia's feet. --jenny from ravenclaw ******************* From cindysphynx at comcast.net Sun Aug 25 13:45:24 2002 From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (cindysphynx) Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2002 13:45:24 -0000 Subject: Fred and George: The Bullies You Do Know In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43140 Darrin wrote (on whether the twins are bullies): > 1) The stomping -- Why do people refuse to acknowledge what >Malfoy, Crabbe and Goyle were doing prior to this incident? It's >like blinders, it really is. Oh, no. It's not like blinders, IMO. See, what Malfoy, Crabbe and Goyle were doing before they were stomped is *totally* irrelevant to whether they deserved to be stomped, IMHO. Once the three were disabled and unconscious, they no longer posed a threat to anyone. Therefore, the stompers weren't engaged in self-defense (or defense of others) at that point. (I think there's a pretty good argument that Malfoy, Crabbe and Goyle weren't threatening the occupants of the train compartment in the first place so that any assault on them was wrong, but I'll go ahead and assume the twins acted in self-defense and defense of others.) They were engaged in plain old bullying of someone who was totally defenseless. Not convinced? Let's tweak the facts a bit. Let's say that Malfoy, Crabbe and Goyle are dangerous predators -- serial killers or some such. Let's further say that the twins are police officers. Once a police officer has disabled a suspect, is the police officer allowed to go over to the suspect and kick them around, step on them deliberately, or stomp on them? Of course not. Now, this analogy still holds even if Fred and George are private citizens instead of police officers -- once someone has subdued a criminal while acting in self-defense, they aren't legally (or morally) entitled to stomp on them just because they feel like it. So. To answer your question directly ("Why do people refuse to acknowledge what Malfoy, Crabbe and Goyle were doing prior to this incident?"), the reason is that it is totally irrelevant to whether the twins acted appropriately by deliberately stepping on unconscious individuals. That was just plain *wrong.* It is abusing a person in a weaker position -- bullying, in other words. Darrin: >Then, they > shove them into the hallway and if you read canon, are careful to > step over the three Slyths on the way out. Canon does *not* say Fred and George were careful to step over the three Slytherins on the way out. Oh, no. No, no, no. Here's what canon says: "He left the compartment before they could say another word, stepping over Malfoy, Crabbe, and Goyle . . ." The "He" in that sentence is *Harry.* The "they" refers to Fred and George, who were stunned that Harry had given them his Triwizard winnings. We have no idea how the twins left the compartment. For all we know, the twins hopped up and down on Malfoy, Crabbe and Goyle on their way out. ;-) See, Harry is not a bully and he knows it would be *wrong* to step on an unconscious person out of spite. So Harry steps *over* the three unconscious people rather than tread on them, even though I suspect he would dearly love to jump up and down on them. If anything, Harry's behavior tells us that it was quite possible to enter or exit the compartment without stepping on Malfoy, Crabbe and Goyle -- which makes the twins' decision to do otherwise all the more abusive. No, the only thing we know for sure about Fred and George in that scene is that they were deliberately cruel and stepped on unconscious people when they did not have to do so, past the point when any threat (and I use the term "threat" quite loosely here) had been neutralized. "Fred "matter-of-factly" stepped onto Goyle. George "was careful to tread on Malfoy." Yeah. Fred and George went out of their way to abuse weaker individuals, to bully them, IMO. Darrin: > Please, do not believe I am defending Fred and George as saints. I > can see their act getting old. But I believe that they are nowhere > near the bullies Draco and his gang are and their motivations are > much less dangerous. Oh, I'll grant you that Draco is a bigger bully than Fred and George. But that doesn't mean that Fred and George are not bullies just because Draco is better at it. After all, Voldemort is a murderer, but the fact that his bodycount is higher than Wormtail's does not mean Wormtail is not a murderer. Draco, Fred and George have all engaged in bullying behavior in the books, IMO. Darrin wrote (earlier in the thread): > To compare Fred and George being cold to Cedric in a small group >to Draco's actions is unconscionable. I replied: > I beg your pardon? > "Unconscionable" means "Not restrained by conscience; >unscrupulous; beyond prudence or reason; excessive." Surely we can >disagree about a few scenes in a book series without anyone calling >anyone else's scruples into question. Darrin responded: > My language was carefully chosen there. Well . . . I think it is rather important to be clear, then. It sounded to me like you were suggesting that those who disagree with you are either unconscionable themselves or that they are making an unconscionable argument. Either way, I don't think it is "unconscionable" to make the arguments here with which you take issue. It is probably more accurate and more kind simply to voice disagreement without characterizing either the argument or the person making it. Darrin continued: >I sincerely believe that > there is such bending and twisting to somehow attach the same >level of severity to the actions of Gryffindors, any Gryffindors, >as to Slytherins, that crucial elements -- such as the racism >behind Draco's actions -- are being ignored. To do that is to place >the goal of the argument above the substance of the material you >are arguing, which I find beyond prudence and reason and excessive. Ah, gee. And I thought we were making real progress for a minute there. ;-) I disagree with you, as you've probably gathered. But I don't think I'm bending anything, twisting anything, or ignoring anything. I think we just disagree. I don't understand why we can't just leave it there. I really do think that the actions of Fred and George in the train compartment were wrong ? wrong like certain acts of bullying by Draco. That Draco is also a racist does not change my analysis at all, because I don't think Fred and George get a pass on bullying conduct because Draco is a racist and they are not. I don't see how my difference of opinion means that I am placing a goal over substance. In my own mind, I think I *am* arguing substance here. So it is inaccurate to say I am placing the goal over the substance, just as it would be inaccurate of me to say that about anyone else's argument so far on this thread. Darrin: > I guess one way to look at it is this: Why haven't Fred and George > been left with their heads in a toilet somewhere? I mean, they are > bigger than the younger kids, but certainly not bigger than the > seventh-years. If their pranks are so intolerable to people, one > would think the law of the playground would have stopped it. Um, maybe Fred and George are just really good at picking their targets, and they always make sure that they pick someone weak and widely viewed as unpopular? Maybe older kids just don't wish to get involved? I'm having trouble thinking of an instance in which Fred and George pick on a student who is stronger than they are, although maybe there is something indicating as much in canon and I just missed it. Cindy From bard7696 at aol.com Sun Aug 25 13:58:50 2002 From: bard7696 at aol.com (darrin_burnett) Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2002 13:58:50 -0000 Subject: Dudley the Victim In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43141 Jenny wrote, quoting and chastising me: > > First, I think the connection between "he got what he deserved" > > and "it's her fault she was attacked" is faulty. > > > > The latter is typically used in describing a rape victim. I do not > > know if that is the connotation you are trying to put forward, but > if so, it is quite unfair.> > > Actually Darrin, if I believe Dudley is a victim, than my opinion is > not faulty. You really need to watch the way you express yourself > here and find ways to disagree with others that aren't so... fautly. > Do I believe your opinion of Dudley as a victim is faulty? Certainly not, and I apologize for using a word you took as offensive. What I believe to be problematic is the linking of the two phrases. I do believe there is a difference between "he (Dudley) got what he deserved" and "it's HER (emphasis mine) fault that she was attacked." And that difference is the crux of my objection. I simply believe they are not on the same level. My objection was, and still remains, linking a phrase commonly used derisively toward rape victims with a phrase that I and others have used to describe Dudley and Draco. I consider it unfair to link the phrases because I feel it insinuates because I don't feel as much sympathy for Dudley as I should, I therefore would blame a rape victim for wearing a short skirt in a bad neighborhood or getting drunk at a frat party. Unfair and, by the way, speaking for myself, untrue. Further, in my description of the unfairness, I took pains to qualify it. If you meant it a certain way, then I considered it unfair. I did not know -- and still do not know -- if you truly meant the rape connotation. Please enlighten me as to whether you do or not. It IS a fairly common use of the phrase "it was her fault she was attacked" and you made the switch from "he" to "her" in the phrases, so I do not believe I am making an hypersensitive jump in logic here. Dudley is the product of horrible parenting, but that does not make Harry any less of a victim of Dudley's actions, nor, in my opinion, Dudley's actions any less reprehensible, nor any more justified. Harry is also the product, in a different way, of horrible parenting, and we have yet to see these kinds of behaviors from him. Perhaps he would not be hard-wired to be a Dudley-type bully, because he is definitely not a child of priviledge, but whatever emotional scars he received in 11 years under the cubboard -- coupled with what is strongly suggested to be physical abuse -- have not yet seemed to manifest themselves in negative ways. > He has only been given boundaries because his school nurse had a chat > with Vernon and Petunia, and my guess is she told them that his weight > could kill him at a young age. > If I may disagree in a way that I do not believe weakens your case, I do not even give Vernon and Petunia that much credit. I think they were humiliated at the nurse telling them there were no bigger uniforms. Vernon and Petunia, keepers of all that is normal in their world, would be aghast at the notion of the great Smeltings having to take the step of custom-making a uniform for their son. >I'd say the real "great bullying gits" here are his parents, and Fred and George know they wouldn't get away with dropping Ton-Tongue Toffees at Vernon and Petunia's feet. > First, would the prank have even worked had they targeted Vernon and Petunia? Vernon and Petunia have more self-control and would not have gobbled up the toffee, especially since they knew it wasn't their toffee, and therefore must be the magical peoples'. Second, doesn't saying "Fred and George know they wouldn't get away with dropping the Ton-Tongue toffees at Vernon and Petunia's feet" imply that they know who the true culprits are and are deliberately avoiding them? I'm not sure the boys deserve that much credit, for spotting the true creator of Dudley's behavior. They are 16-year-olds who have not shown an inclination toward such probing. Darrin -- Maybe this isn't the time for a funny tagline From drumforever at earthlink.net Sun Aug 25 15:00:51 2002 From: drumforever at earthlink.net (Betty Landers) Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2002 11:00:51 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Odds & Ends: Phoenix Tears & Family References: Message-ID: <003f01c24c48$3f2e7240$2cf3b23f@bettysue> No: HPFGUIDX 43142 ----- Original Message ----- From: "bboy_mn" To: Sent: Sunday, August 25, 2002 12:02 AM Subject: [HPforGrownups] Odds & Ends: Phoenix Tears & Family snip > Off on a tangent, related to phoenix, in GoF when Harry is in > Dumbledore's office, just before he starts telling Dumbledore what > happened, Harry is kind of out of it, in shock. Then Fawkes flies down > and lands on Harry's lap (short version), Dumbledore asks Harry to > talk, there is a loud squawk, and Harry feels something warm trickle > down his throat. That 'something warm' is never specifically defined. > > How many people are like me, and assumed that 'something warm' was a > phoenix tear? > L.O.O.N. Patrol from a non-L.O.O.N. member. 1. Fawkes didn't squawk; he let out "one soft, quavering note". 2. Nothing accidentally went down Harry's throat. He only had the feeling that something warm had gone down hi throat, warming and strengthening him. Here's the exact passage. "The phoenix let out one soft, quavering note. It shivered in the air, and Harry felt as though a drop of hot liquid had slipped down his throat into his stomach, warming him, and strengthening him." I took that to be another display of phoenix song's powers of encouragement, strength,etc. Betty From nightngle at yahoo.com Sun Aug 25 16:19:08 2002 From: nightngle at yahoo.com (nightngle) Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2002 16:19:08 -0000 Subject: Fantastic Beasts - Phoenix Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43143 Since there are a few threads regarding the properties of the phoenix and it's tail feathers, and because not everyone has a copy of "Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them" by Newt Scamander (aka JKR), here's the paragraph: "Phoenix M.O.M. Classfication: XXXX (not because it is aggressive, but because very few wizards have ever been successful in domesticating it) "The phoenix is a magnificent, swan-sized, scarlet bird with a long golden tail, beak, and talons. It nests on mountain peaks and is found in Egypt, India, and China. The phoenix lives to an immense age as it can regenerate, bursting into flames when its body begins to fail and rising again from the ashes as a chick. The phoenix is a gentle creature that has never been known to kill and eats only herbs. Like the Diricawl, it can disappear and reappear at will. Phoneix song is magical; it is reputed to increase the courage of the pure of heart and to strike fear into the hearts of the impure. Phoenix tears have powerful healing properties." Additionally, when the golden web of light encircles Harry and Voldemort in GoF, the sound the vibrations of the threads emitts is the phoenix song. Harry characterizes this as: "It was the sound of hope to Harry... the most beautiful and welcome thing he had ever heard in his life..." Then, when he needed courage again to relate the story to Dumbledore and Sirius: "The phoenix let out one soft, quavering note. It shivered in the air, and Harry felt as though a drop of hot liquid had slipped down his throat into his stomach, warming him, and strengthening him." Perhaps the fatal flaw of Voldemort will be the phoenix song - strengthening Harry's pure heart and weakening his impure heart; the distinction that will make the difference when two seemingly equal strengths meet. Nightengale Murphy From grega126 at aol.com Sun Aug 25 17:15:09 2002 From: grega126 at aol.com (greg_a126) Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2002 17:15:09 -0000 Subject: MAGIC DISHWASHER (Was: Re: Wandless!Harry - A Fatal Flaw?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43144 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "grey_wolf_c" wrote: > > Yes, we all know, because we're following Harry's life, that he's > > not even the best wizard in his class when it comes to that sort of > > thing. But that's not what Harry Potter means to the WW. Harry > > Potter is a symbol. He, when he was a little over 1 year old, > > defeated the worst dark lord in over 100 years. A dark lord so > > terrible that nearly 15 years later people are still afraid to say > > his name. > > > > So what does that mean? These people are absolutely terrified. > > Harry Potter is the reason many of them are going to fight. If > > Harry's dead body had been sent to the Daily Prophet, w/ a little > > note on it from Lord Voldemort, I think a ton of them just would've > > given up. But now that he's escaped, he's Harry Potter, the Boy- Who- > > Lived, the Tri-Wizard champion, and one of the few people who has > > ever escaped the Dark Lord's wrath & he's now done it 3 times. But > > most important of all, he's the Boy-Who's-Living. > > Do you really believe they will fight? Even with Harry Potter on their > side? I am not one of the Fudge Is Evil defenders. To me, he's the > perfect example of the typical WW wizard, and he's not willing to fight > against Voldemort. Nor are many of the wizard and witches, which is why > Dumbledore has that group of people he *knows* he can trust. Notice > that, so far, the only people who don't call Voldemort "you know who" > have happened to be part of the "old gang", and the only ones willing > to fight him. I don't think that's true. Based on Chapter one of PS, Professor McGonagall only refers to him as "You-Know-Who". Number one, I doubt Dumbledore would have a deputy that he didn't think he could count on in the fight against Voldemort. Plus, her actions at the end of book 4 imply to me someone who's used to being in a war. Not only does she help Dumbledore stun Crouch, but when he gives her some rather odd orders, she doesn't stop to question, but immediately runs to carry them out. I see her as sitting along side Dumbledore in all of his meetings to try & find a way to kill Voldemort, regardless of whether or not she can say his name. So I don't see Fudge as prototypical of the WW. The person that I see more as a representative of the whole, even though he's not a proper wizard, is Hagrid. "Long as we've got Dumbledore we'll be ok." But Dumbledore is either going to die or be incapacitated before the end of book 7. And at that point, when Harry Potter, the Boy-Who-Lived goes to him and says "I need your help to finish the war", he's going to continue to fight. > > Voldemort can't take over the WW until Harry & Dumbledore are both > > dead. Until then, he can be a royal pain, but he can't rule. Once > > they're both dead, he's the Minister of Magic until he dies. He > > knows that. He knows that as long as Harry is alive, there are > > always going to be people who oppose him. Why bother to send a tiny > > little bit of disinformation via Harry, when there are so many other > > ways to do it. Snape for instance, is almost certain to at least > > try & take up his spying post again. It'd take a few weeks to send > > everything via Snape, at most, and then the deed would be done, but > > Harry would be dead. > > But he *can* rule the WW with both Dumbledore and Harry still alive. > Let's take this to the limit: Voldemort kills everyone that oposes him > except H&D: He gets to rule the WW, even if they still exist. I guess this is true...but if it was just Voldemort & 2 other people it wouldn't be much of a world to rule. Truth is, > Dumbledore is not in a position of political authority, and he has > never wanted to be. It's comendable, and a strong defensive position, > but it means that Voldemort can take over the MoM, put someone he trust > at the top, and reduce Dumbledore's side to a resistance movement. And > if that happens, Voldemort will have won the war, because no war can > *ever* be won from a hit-and-run position. I'm not saying that Voldemort won't ever run the MoM, but I think so long as people, for the most part, look to Dumbledore for guidance that Voldemort can't be completely in charge of the WW, MoM or no. > > The other thing, "After all, his real eney is Dumbledore, and last > > time, it was easy to beat him." I don't think that's true at all. > > If it was, why didn't he? I think the best that either could do > > would be hurt each other enough that they'd both die. The fact that > > Dumbledore is probably the only wizard alive who would have a chance > > at killing him is enough to keep Voldemort away until he's sure of > > his immortality. At the same time, Dumbledore is aware of his > > importance to the good guys, and isn't willing to get into a fight > > that may lead to his death, but not Voldemort's and the good guys > > would lose the war. > > > > Greg > > But he *did* beat him. By all acounts, at the time of his sudden > downfall, Voldemort had managed to almost take over the WW. Yes, but almost counts only in horseshoes & hand gernades, not war. ;) > And finally, I repeat the basic of Voldemort's reasoning to let Harry > leave: While it is true that he probably needs to kill the boy, he has > still got three years more before Harry finishes his training (and from > Voldemort's PoV, probably even a few years more. If I was Voldemort, > I'd hardly expect Dumbledore to send Harry against me at the immediate > end of his training). This is just the definition of bad military tactics. You said it yourself, "He needs to kill the boy." If that graveyard scene had happened w/ just about any other wizard, I would find it much more likely that Voldemort would try a disinformation campaign. But whatever reason existed 14 years ago for him to want to kill this little brat still exists. If he's just lost his mother's protection, I as Voldemort, make sure to kill him before Dumbledore comes up w/ some other enchantment, like he's using at his relative's house, to keep this kid safe permanently. Greg From oppen at cnsinternet.com Sun Aug 25 18:04:44 2002 From: oppen at cnsinternet.com (Eric Oppen) Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2002 13:04:44 -0500 Subject: Dudley Deserved It? Message-ID: <00bc01c24c61$e4f20480$2987aa41@hppav> No: HPFGUIDX 43145 My own take on the Ton-Tongue Toffee Incident is that although the twins may not have had the absolute right to do what they did, Dudley deserved what happened to him. Blaming his parents for Dudley's treatment of Harry only goes so far. Like all of us, Dudley is (admittedly, a rather inferior and wretched example of) a human being, with the same gift of free will that Harry has...and Ron, and Hermione, and Draco, and everybody else in the Potterverse. While his parents no doubt did nothing to _discourage_ Dudley's abuse of his cousin, I somehow rather doubt that they gave him specific directions ("Now, Duddiekins, off to school, and make sure to get your gang together and give your cousin a good sound thrashing!") if only because that would clash with their own perception of themselves as Normal, Respectable People. If anything, I think they refused to believe that Their Dudders (ghods, those awful dimunitives they use for him! YUK!) would ever do anything so awful. Dudley made his own choices in a lot of ways. While he's a greedy, obese over-eater ("a pig in a wig") largely because his parents encourage him to be so, his parents are not around during school, and he could perfectly well either just more-or-less ignore Harry, or even be civil and nice to him there. Instead, he's described as a bully who picks on smaller, weaker kids, and the leader of a gang of bullies, and as specifically targetting Harry both by directly attacking (where ARE their teachers, for the gods' sake?) and by ensuring that his cousin has no friends. He is a willing participant in his parents' abuse and mistreatment of Harry. His youth is, in and of itself, no defense. At the age he was at in the beginning of PS/SS, my contemporaries and I were perfectly well able to differentiate ourselves and our wishes from those of our parents, and to ignore or even go against our parents' wishes, particularly if the Parental Units were nowhere nearby. Many kids I remember from that age were "closet rebels," deliberately doing all they could to defy their parents just because they were their parents. Dudley could easily have rebelled against his parents, if only because they sound so very suffocating, and made a point of being as nice to Harry as he could get away with. Or, if that's too much for The Dud to get his tiny tiny mind around, just ignoring Harry as much as possible while at school and otherwise not under his parents' eye would have been just fine with Harry, from what we read. While the twins may not have been the _ideal_ person to deliver a bit of the old retribution to Dudley...they were what was available, and willing. In an ideal Potterverse, Harry would have long since turned Dudley into a real pig and threatened to ship him off to be made into bacon, but that's forbidden by the law against underage magic use. The twins were aware of Dudley's behavior, and the Ton-Tongue Toffee Incident, while it _could_ have gone badly wrong, was not only a bit of long-overdue punishment, but poetic justice in its way. The twins must have known about Dudley's gluttony, and about his diet. _All Dudley had to do to avoid the trap was to stick to the diet that had been set for him._ If he had done so, no harm would have befallen him. In a lot of ways, Gred-and-Forge remind me of the main characters in Kipling's _Stalky & Co_...about the only "school stories" I was at all familiar with before Harry Potter came along. While Stalky, M'Turk and Beetle often do fairly unpleasant things, their sins are pretty mild, and their targets are portrayed as having provoked the confrontation...and in one story, "The Moral Reformers," Stalky & Co. go into action on behalf of a bullying victim, after being made aware of the situation by one of their friends on the United Service College's faculty. I think that the Twins and Stalky & Co. would get along splendidly...and the ghods help their enemies! Oh, and one last thought---it is often forgotten that "vigilante justice," at least in the American West, got started _because_ the official law-enforcement agencies were either hopelessly ineffective or in the pockets of the criminal underworld. We may see a similar situation in the Potterverse before it's all over, at least until somebody honest and competent becomes Minister of Magic. From kellybroughton at yahoo.com Sun Aug 25 18:25:25 2002 From: kellybroughton at yahoo.com (kelly broughton) Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2002 11:25:25 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Odds & Ends: Phoenix Tears & Family In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020825182525.75872.qmail@web21101.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 43146 --- bboy_mn wrote: > File this under 'What are the odds?": > > Try this on for size; Harry James Weasley-Potter. > > What are the odds that the Weasleys will officially adopt Harry as a > member of their family? > [snippage] > Think about it, the book begins with Harry living a horrible life with > (so called) family who treat him like dirt, and at the end of the > book, Harry is finally part of a wonderful loving family. Seems like > very nice closure. > > Just some thought. > > bboy_mn > Oh, I can think of a couple of things that might prevent this from happening: 1. Sirius Black might have something to say about this. 2. Harry will soon be an adult, and therefore too old to adopt. But it is still a very nice thought! -kel __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes http://finance.yahoo.com From rvotaw at i-55.com Sun Aug 25 18:30:30 2002 From: rvotaw at i-55.com (Richelle Votaw) Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2002 13:30:30 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Pheonix Tears/ MAGIC DISHWASHER/ Dudley the victim References: Message-ID: <008201c24c65$7e3b0440$629dcdd1@istu757> No: HPFGUIDX 43147 > boy_mn Responds: > > More along this line: He was completely unfocused, exhausted, in > shock, and he felt something go down his throat. He didn't know what > it was or where it came from but it "felt as though* a drop of hot > liquid had slipped down his throat...". In a sense, we aren't being > given an account of events but an interpretation of event. Since the > interpretation has an element of uncertainty, it 'felt as though'. That is an interesting way to look at it, I'd never thought of it that way, that what to Harry felt like something slipping down his throat could actually *be* something slipping down his throat, not just the effects of the song. Fawkes has sang to Harry before, in the Chamber of Secrets, and he doesn't feel as though anything's going down his throat. So, if it was a tear, how did it get there and why? How it got there's a bit trickly, but seeing as the bird itself can apparate it may have other magical powers we don't know and can't understand. So I'll leave that much to be determined. As for why, what about to heal the effects of the Cruciatus curse? Harry felt "as if his very bones were on fire" and I'm sure that would leave quite a lingering pain. Nothing on the exterior that can be seen to heal, like the leg wound could, but still something that could perhaps be healed with the tears. Just a thought. Grey Wolf writes: > But he [Voldemort] *can* rule the WW with both Dumbledore and Harry still alive. > Let's take this to the limit: Voldemort kills everyone that oposes him > except H&D: He gets to rule the WW, even if they still exist. Truth is, > Dumbledore is not in a position of political authority, and he has > never wanted to be. It's comendable, and a strong defensive position, > but it means that Voldemort can take over the MoM, put someone he trust > at the top, and reduce Dumbledore's side to a resistance movement. And > if that happens, Voldemort will have won the war, because no war can > *ever* be won from a hit-and-run position. But how can Voldemort kill *everyone* except Harry and Dumbledore? Even in Voldemort's first reign he feared Dumbledore. As long as Dumbledore's around and Voldemort fears him he will hestitate to go openly to whereever Dumbledore is. Which as long as Dumbledore is at Hogwart's it is a sort of safe haven. And as long as there are still a large number at Hogwarts, Voldemort can't rule the entire WW. Jenny from Ravenclaw writes: > I never said Dudley was an innocent victim, but he is a victim > nonetheless. He is as much a target of his parents' abuse as Harry > is, but obviously he is suffering in other ways. Well, in that case Draco Malfoy is as much of a victim as Dudley is. Draco's only the way he is because his parents raised him that way. Lucius has raised his son to be a carbon copy of himself. Expressing hatred toward Muggle borns, etc. Yet this does not excuse Draco's actions toward Harry and co. Neither does it excuse Dudley's actions toward Harry. There comes a time when a child has to take a stand on their own to decide for themselves what is right whether or not their parents agreed with it. So far neither Dudley nor Draco have chosen to take a stand for what's right. Instead they follow in their parents footsteps. Their upbringing is no excuse for their actions. Richelle From jodel at aol.com Sun Aug 25 19:33:20 2002 From: jodel at aol.com (jodel at aol.com) Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2002 15:33:20 EDT Subject: Dudley the Victim-- Side note Message-ID: <1ab.758006f.2a9a8b00@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 43148 Jenny from ravenclaw writes; >>At the rate he is going, Dudley will end up a 45 year old who still lives with Mommy and Daddy, doesn't work to support himself and has no family or friends of his own to care about.<< Sounds familiar. And haven't we all just seen this kind of thing before? In fact, it sounds a bit like another Riddle family in the making. It's a parallel that I had noticed myself, but haven't seen brought up since I came on board. And I doubt that it is accidental. (And just maybe young Tom should have been grateful that he was farmed out to an orphanage.) I've always suspected that the Riddle's of Little Hangleton were New Money. Son and grandson of some mid-Victorian industrialist from the midlands (much like Vernon Dursley, in fact. Only sharper, luckier and opperating in a time before personal income tax) whose kids were educated at Eton and fancied themselves as "quality". I also suspect that as richest local resident old Mr Riddle had served as the local Magistrate and had facilitated the "disposal" of his son's inconvenient wife and eventual child.) I suspect this may be yet another example of the comment (Mark Twain's? I can't recall) that "History doesn't repeat itself. But it rhymes." -JOdel From metal_tiara at hotmail.com Sun Aug 25 19:56:26 2002 From: metal_tiara at hotmail.com (sophineclaire) Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2002 19:56:26 -0000 Subject: Odds & Ends: Family -Harry as the Weasley Cousin In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43149 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "bboy_mn" wrote: > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - >> > File this under 'What are the odds?": > > Try this on for size; Harry James Weasley-Potter. > Let's try something in a smaller size; Harry James Potter MIGHT be related to the Weasleys. Ron does mention ( in COS? I never have my books around...) that there is a squib cousin whom no one ever talks about and said squib eventually became an accountant. Assuming that the squib was a male, he could be Lily's Grandfather ( since we do not know the age of the squib and the word cousin doesn't have to refer to someone young, especially in the WW) or even her father ( It doesn't matter if it was the 60's or not, he could have taken his wife's name. No body would care since it seems like the squib was Persona non grata to his family.) This leads to an explanation for the excitement and pride that there was a witch in the family ( why would muggles, who aren't suppose to know about the wizarding world, be proud and excited upon receiving the initial letter?) However this can all be disproved and discarded as soon as we find out the following questions: _Who are Lily's parents? Grandparents (if relevent)? _What did her parents do for a living? _Do "muggle-born" or "Squib-born" children visited by facuty members or receive different letters then other Hogwarts students before first year begins? _What was the name of the Weasley squib? I thought there was something significant in what Harry saw in the Mirror of Erised that I add later when I unpack the moving boxes to find the books. -sophineclaire Who believes that all red-haired wizards and witches are related one way or another. From meboriqua at aol.com Sun Aug 25 21:19:39 2002 From: meboriqua at aol.com (jenny_ravenclaw) Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2002 21:19:39 -0000 Subject: Dudley the victim In-Reply-To: <008201c24c65$7e3b0440$629dcdd1@istu757> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43150 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Richelle Votaw" wrote: >Draco Malfoy is as much of a victim as Dudley is. Draco's only the way he is because his parents raised him that way. Lucius has raised his son to be a carbon copy of himself. Expressing hatred toward Muggle borns, etc. Yet this does not excuse Draco's actions toward Harry and co. Neither does it excuse Dudley's actions toward Harry. There comes a time when a child has to take a stand on their own to decide for themselves what is right whether or not their parents agreed with it. So far neither Dudley nor Draco have chosen to take a stand for what's right. Instead they follow in their parents footsteps. Their upbringing is no excuse for their actions.> Ah, but I never said that Dudley should be excused for his actions. He certainly knows that hitting Harry is wrong, but Dudley is clearly unhappy at home with his parents, so he takes it out on Harry. Dudley needs to be on that diet and he needs to learn that the way he treats Harry is inexcusable, but that should come from his parents or from Harry, not Fred and George. As far as Draco goes, quite a few people do believe that Draco is abused by his father. I don't subscribe to that belief. Lucius is teaching his son quite poorly, but Draco, unlike Dudley, can do wrong in the eyes of his parents. He does get disciplined, unlike Dudley, whose parents tend to give him even more toys, trips and food when he is unhappy. Lucius at least communicates with his son. The Dursleys have nothing that even resembles communication with Dudley. I hate what Lucius has taught Draco. To tell your children that they are superior to others is a terrible thing to do. But is it abusive? That's hard for me to say yes to, because Lucius himself believes he is teaching his son the right thing. The Dursleys teach Dudley absolutely nothing; he can't even count past 30 at age 11! --jenny from ravenclaw ********************* From mi_shell16 at hotmail.com Sun Aug 25 20:22:37 2002 From: mi_shell16 at hotmail.com (theresnothingtoit) Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2002 20:22:37 -0000 Subject: Practicality of LOLLIPOPS In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43151 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "purple_801999" wrote: Olivia wrote- >I have a feeling that someone will fill in the blanks for Harry ala >Dumbledore or a new character perhaps after the initial revelation. Oh no! If Dumbledores eyes twinkle in amusement at our poor Severus's broken heart I think I will burn the book! Severus must look over into Harrys eyes after being tortured into spilling the beans and Harry will just know! I think it would be much, much more interesting if Dumbledore knew absolutly nothing about it. Well he will probably know that Severus had a crush on her but not if they had any sort of relationship. >Hey, you know Voldemort and the other DE's would love a chance to >torture the DE that has left forever and what better way than to >remind him of how despite his best efforts his dear Lily was still >AK'ed.And to have him admit it in front of Harry no less. I have this vision of Snape getting his ass kicked my none other than Mrs Lestrange and the sad truth slowly and painfully being tortured from him, he would win in the end but not before it looks like the end has come. To say this infront of Harry would be bad but what about admiting it infront of Black, mortal enamy and best friend of the man she married. Black would find it hillarious and taunt Severus even worse, especially if he had lusted after her in secret. >Another thing this made me think of is what if Snape wanted to turn >Sirius in so much in the Shrieking Shack not because of a twenty year >grudge but because he still believed him to be the traitor? If Snape >was the spy who tipped off James and Lily that they were next on >Voldie's hit list then having someone who Snape already hated be the >one who undermined all of his efforts and got the Potters killed >anyway would help to explain his unwillingness to listen to or >believe Sirius's story. Perhaps while Snape is in a rage at Sirius, I am conviced there is going to be a big fist fight between these two foes, he will yell out "you killed her after I had worked so hard to protect her...er...I mean...erm...them, you killed them, after I worked so hard...(oh hell, I've been rumbled)!" Theresnothingtoit Who is also a Tragic Romantic and worries about why we kept getting told about the Gobblin Rebelions From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Sun Aug 25 22:15:40 2002 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (bboy_mn) Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2002 22:15:40 -0000 Subject: Fred & George Step on Draco - Big Deal Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43152 I'm sure some people are going to find the next statement offensive. However, that is not my intention; I'm simple illustrating that sometimes you can think too 'deeply'. The point I want to make is that there is a difference between 'rational' thought and 'rationalizing'. Let take the alleged bullies Fred and George and the incident on the train. 1.) The curses - Several people cursed Draco & Co, but they all acted independently. They all cursed spontaneously as a reaction to Draco insulting and offensive reference to Cedric, and they did so not knowing that other people were also about to curse Draco. This wasn't some grand conspiracy to lure Draco into a trap and attack him. Draco provoked the attack, and justly received the attack he provoked. Let's also keep in mind that everyone who spontaneously and independently attacked Draco, did so with a harassment curse. These were not severe curses and they were not curses intended to do any real damage. The damage though relatively mild, was compounded by the fact that Draco & Co. were hit by at least five curses at the same time. Keep in mind that Fred and George are a lot more advanced students of magic than Harry & Co. If they had intended to do harm, they would not have used 'harassment curses'. So Fred and George did not act with the combined premeditated intent of knocking Draco unconscious or causing him any harm; certainly with the intent of causing him annoyance and embarrassment, but not harm. 2.) Stepping on Draco- was not a physical assault, it was an act of supreme disrespect. A disrespectful act against someone who under the circumstances did not deserve much respect. In Japan, there is a type of massage where the person giving the massage walks on your back. It's considered quite relaxing and enjoyable. In martial arts class, we used to walk on each other's stomach to strengthen out abdominal muscles. So being stepped on is a long long way from an assault. Now with out a doubt, you can step on a person in ways that are intended to cause damage, but I don't see the twins, acting with the intent to cause damage or pain or harm. Keep in mind that in the examples of being step on that I gave, the people are conscious, and suffer no pain or harm, and in one case, actually feel pleasure. Certainly, stepping on Draco wasn't very nice, but I would never consider it an attack or an assault, and I can't/won't believe that it was done with the intention of causing harm. 3.) The kick - they rolled, pushed, and kicked Draco & Co out into the hallway outside the train compartment. THEY DID NOT "KICK HIM WHEN HE WAS DOWN". The 'kicked' part was not an assault. It was not an attack on Draco with any intent to cause harm or pain. Kicked in this case means they pushed and rolled him out using their foot. It was by no means a kick in the most common sense of the word kick. They intent was to simply get Draco out of their compartment. 4.) Restraint - Ron, Harry, and the twin have show remarkable restrain when it comes to Draco, something Draco has certainly never shown them. Ron has suffered endless insults from Draco and has rarely reacted in any way other than verbally. He has however reacted much stronger when other people have been insulted; Hermione and the belching slugs incident for example. If Ron or the twins or for that matter Harry, had engaged in a scientific exercise called 'conditioned response', they could very easily stop Draco. If Ron punched Draco in the face everytime Draco insulted Ron or one of his friends, Draco would quickly develop a 'conditioned response'. He would begin to associate insulting people with getting punch, and once he saw the connection, he would certainly refrain from engaging in the action that cause that particular response. But that hasn't happened, it hasn't happed because Ron, Harry, and the twins have all show remarkable restrain in dealing with Draco. Speaking of restrain, in the train incident, Draco threatened everyone with death, and they all showed restraint, but when Draco began to insult Cedric and Cedric's memory; Cedric who was a decent, honest, intelligent, sensitive, hardworking, fair, just, and noble person; everyone reacted. While they reacted to defend Cedric, they restrained themselves when they were personally threatened with death. Another issue that has been brought up which is related to restraint; Draco made a public spectacle out of the fact that Harry fainted when he saw the Dementors, Fred and George made a very private comment intended to comfort Harry regarding Draco's response to the Dementors. 5.) Joke & Pranks - Fred and George always pick on the little kids. Well, yes but then again no. The longer you know George and Fred the more of their gags, trick, pranks, and jokes you've been exposed too. How many times to you have to turn into a canary before you stop taking Canary Cakes from them? The only people who haven't seen these jokes are the newer students, so that who they play the jokes on. I was under the impression that the Canary Cakes were very popular and that the twins sold a lot of them. People were turning into canaries all over the place until everyone wised up and stopped accepting any food from anybody. The Ton Tongue Toffee and Dudley was certainly a risky and potentially dangerous prank, but common sense says that if the intended to sell these that, just like the Canary Cake, after a short period of time, your tongue goes back to normal on it's own. No one had to enchant Neville back into a person, when the Canary Cake wore off, the just changed back and he personally had a laugh over it, because he saw it as embarrassing but harmless fun, which is what a prank or a joke is suppose to be. I'm sure the twins thought through the elements of danger regarding the TTToffee. But I seriously doubt they allowed for the danger of Mr. and Mrs. Dursley's reaction. I doubt that they considered that Petunia would try to rip Dudley's tongue out. So it was a dangerous stunt in that there were aspects of it that were very unpredictable. Considering the impulsive nature of most 16 year olds, this doesn't seem that out of the ordinary. Also, you'll notice that while the Dursley's freak out, Arthur Weasley wasn't too concerned. Sorry but that just doesn't sound like a bunch of bullies to me. bboy_mn From gohana_chan02 at lycos.com Sun Aug 25 22:48:48 2002 From: gohana_chan02 at lycos.com (Hana) Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2002 18:48:48 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] That Puffskein incident (was: Why I like the Twins) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43153 The one thing that really bothers me about the twins is the whole Puffskein thing -- they seem to be thoughtlessly playful most of the time, but using a Puffskein as a Bludger seems cruel. Judy said: >>I should point out a possibility that I don't think has been mentioned on this thread -- maybe one of the Twins is nice and the other isn't. I know that was discussed here a few months ago. I think the claim was that Fred is evil and George is nice -- I guess that would mean Fred is George's evil twin! (Oh no -- are we going to have one of those "evil twin mistaken identity" plot lines in books 5, 6, or 7?)<< I think that if one of the twins was evil it would be George. He's the one that walks on Malfoy in GoF and he's the one who helps Harry and Ron kick and roll Malfoy, Crabbe, and Goyle into the corridor. Fred doesn't participate in either action. I haven't gone looking through the books to prove the point however, so I could have missed things that indicate evil!Fred ;) --- --Hana __________________________________________________________ Outgrown your current e-mail service? Get a 25MB Inbox, POP3 Access, No Ads and No Taglines with LYCOS MAIL PLUS. http://login.mail.lycos.com/brandPage.shtml?pageId=plus From coriolan_cmc at hotmail.com Sun Aug 25 22:56:02 2002 From: coriolan_cmc at hotmail.com (coriolan_cmc2001) Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2002 22:56:02 -0000 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Blastin=92_in_the_Street_(filk)?= Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43154 Blastin' in the Street To the tune of Dancin' in the Street Dedicated to Mike Gray Hear the original at: http://www.buffnet.net/~ambrosia/page5.htm THE SCENE: A street in London, circa 1981. Anticipating Sirius Black's arrival, PETTIGREW forms a desperate but ingenious plan to escape, and frame Sirius as the ally of Voldemort. A CHORUS OF SEWER RATS, celebrating PETTIGREW's entry into their domain, provides backup PETTIGREW & (CHORUS) Falling down is my whole world I'm unready for Voldy's defeat When Black comes then the time is right For blastin' in the street To detonate some Muggles (blastin' in the street) Into smithereens (blastin' in the street) That are itty-bitty (blastin' in the street) All I need is my magic, Animagic And I'll murder everyone Straight down the road went as a rodent, Furrier and fleet Oh, it doesn't matter if Black's framed Just as long as I'm unblamed So, come on, Pettigrew, grab your wand It's your turn to now respond There'll be blastin' Be blastin' in the street (blastin' in the street) Then it's my transformation Rat-ification That way Sirius I'll cheat I'll be whiskered and furry and in a hurry Just fleein' down the street Unbeknowst to Pettigrew, Black Apparates to the scene PETER & CHORUS They boomeranged his A.K. (blastin' in the street) Voldemort is deceased now (blastin' in the street) Yeah, it's the moment to get ratty (blastin' in the street) All I need is magic, Dark Magic There'll be Aurors everywhere There'll be just one finger that I'll leave linger When blastin' up the street, yeah Oh, it will not matter what Black does He'll get snatched up by the fuzz So c'mon, Sirius, grab your wand But Pettigrew now has you conned! There'll be blastin' Be blastin' in the street (A large crowd of Muggles, attracted by PETTIGREW's singing, is assembled. PETTIGREW theatrically pretends to corner BLACK) PETTIGREW (spoken, feigning tears): Lily and James, Sirius! How could you? (PETTIGREW pulls out his wand. Sirius pulls his wand out in response. PETTIGREW creates an explosion which kills twenty Muggles standersby, then, transforming into a rat, flees the scene. BLACK begin laughing hysterically). PETTIGREW AND (CHORUS) (fleeing the scene, fading out) I shall first betray, then sneak away I've blasted up the street A new life I am livin' Fugitivin', off to the Weasleys (Blastin' in the street) Out to the Burrow, watch me go (A few seconds after PETTIGREW disappears, a team of Ministry Hitwizards appears and takes BLACK into custody) BLACK (laughing helplessly): Peter, that is the absolutely worst singing I've ever heard in my life!! (BLACK is led away by the Hitwizards) - CMC HARRY POTTER FILKS http://home.att.net/~coriolan/hpfilks.htm (updated today with three dozen new filks) From lucky_kari at yahoo.ca Sun Aug 25 23:15:54 2002 From: lucky_kari at yahoo.ca (lucky_kari) Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2002 23:15:54 -0000 Subject: Fred and George: The Bullies You Do Know In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43155 Would it surprise you that I agree totally with Elkins? It wouldn't? Oh well.... --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "ssk7882" wrote: > And...let's see. Who else? Well, there's Dudley. Ton-tongue >toffee, anyone? The kid is three years younger than they are, and >he's a muggle besides; it is plain to see that he is absolutely >*petrified* of magic, and the twins are passing him cursed sweets. > Very nice. In general response to Elkins' post, Abigail wrote: >You know, I've had the feeling for a long time that, as a group, we >tend to over-analize the Harry Potter books - at least past a certain >point. Now, it seems to me that there is an assumption here that subversive opinions such as "Fred and George are mean, insensitive bullies" are the fruits of over-analyzation on the part of those who propose them. This is not the case. We subversives come to our subversive readings instinctively. Debbie wrote: >I've always had difficulty accepting the humor in the scene. Nods. The ton-tongue-toffee made me feel sick, just really sick. I couldn't laugh at all. And that was an instinctive reading, as instinctive as any hearty guffaw at the "hilarious" situation. Now, Debbie has already done an excellent job of explaining what was wrong with the prank, so I'll pass on to Cindy (who is getting edgier all the time), who took a great deal of heat for saying: >See, I think the twins have a superiority complex when it comes to >Muggle relations. Maybe there are good reasons for this, but I >sense it nonetheless. Darrin responded: >No, there is no evidence Fred and George go after Dudley simply >because he is a Muggle or simply because he is fat. Again, they go >after him because he is a bully himself and they know what Harry went >through Cindy's objection holds water, though, in my opinion. Of course, Fred and George don't target Dudley out of hatred for Muggles. But it was a disdain for Muggles that underlaid the whole incident, in my humble and most sycophantic opinion. Muggles are really at the whim of the wizarding world, we have seen. People like Albus Dumbledore believe that wizards have no right to have other human beings at their whim. People like Draco Malfoy think that's perfectly fine. And then, there's the twins. Being brought up by Arthur Weasley, they would probably claim to be completely on Dumbledore's side. However, their actions belie this. I think Arthur Weasley was perfectly right to lose his temper at his sons. He says that after all he had done to prevent mistreatment of Muggles, look what Fred and George did. Fred and George crossed a line. They took advantage of their magic to hurt someone without magic. In other words, they took on a position of superiority, a position which their father has been waging war on for years, towards another human being. I don't care that they were avenging Harry. It still reminds me suspiciously of nasty things like colonialism and "the white man's burden." To sum it up, I grovel firmly by Cindy's side. Elkins wrote: > Oh, and then there's little Malcolm Baddock. Eleven years old, it's >his very first day at school, the poor kid's probably scared out of >his gourd to begin with, he's just been sorted into Slytherin, and on >his way to the table, big strong sixteen-year-old Fred and George >actually *hiss* him. Now, isn't that disgusting? You know what that reminded me of? It was an election in which tempers were running very high. We had a sign on our lawn for one political party, and some fellow came by while my younger siblings were out on the lawn, and made some abusive remark about their support of the political party. People like that are creeps. At seventeen, perhaps Fred and George can escape a life of perpetual creepdom - I hope they will - but that is just plain creepy behaviour. I don't care if Malcolm Baddock wasn't traumatized for the rest of his life. Neither were my brothers. Elkins wrote: >They can't even manage to be nice to the Ever So Decent Cedric at >the beginning of GoF. He's trying to be friendly, and they're >scowling menacingly at him, just because he had the unmitigated gall >to whip them once at Quidditch. A chorus of voices have chimed in saying that hating perfectly decent people is a very natural reaction. No, it isn't. I don't think it is at all. I don't say that we won't have adverse reactions towards decent people. Harry certainly does. But his jealousy towards Cedric does not seem of the same category as George and Fred's animus against Cedric. Fred and George can not even be polite in front of their father to a fellow classmate who has shown them nothing but goodwill. Harry, when extremely jealous of Cedric, can be quite civil, even if his tone of voice was cold. The twins think that they are allowed to display their irrational negative emotions publicly. May I add egotism to the list of twinnish vices? Elkins wrote: > Even when the twins target adults, it's always *vulnerable* adults. >They don't hurl snowballs at Professor McGonagall, do they? No, of > course not. They throw them at Professor Quirrell, whom they have >every reason to believe is indeed precisely what he appears to be: a >stammering, shell-shocked wreck of a wizard who is tottering right on >the edge of a nervous collapse. Indeed, the targeting of Professor Quirrell is particularly disturbing, imho. I've been in school recently enough to get the chills just thinking about. There is a sort of blood lust in people, but particularily adolescents, a blood lust that causes them to attack once they smell weakness. I know it very well. I must regret to say that I know it because I have felt it, and taken part in it. I was in Grade 6 when I made my science teacher's life a living hell, because she was weak. Quirrell's original description reminded me of her and many other teachers, who perish at the hands of students. Children can be so cruel. I know I was. Even thinking of it gives me the shudders now. I was very badly bullied in elementary school, so you'd think I would have behaved better. But, I didn't. I don't know why. However, I grew up. By the time I was a teenager, I could not stand to see that sort of bullying. I would get quite protective of people like the substitute Choir teacher who stammered and had a hard time keeping control of his class. And I regarded and still regard the 16, 17, 18 year olds who exploited his weaknesses as bullies. And so do I regard Fred and George. Darrin said that Fred and George would have been very happy if Quirrel had thrown a few snowballs back. I'm sure they would have been. But they knew that he was incapable of doing so, that he was a nervous wreck, an object of ridicule across the school. And he was their target, not someone like Snape who could give them better than they got. Elkins writes: >They remind me far too much of so many bullies I have known: the charismatic bullies, the >popular ones, the ones who are always favored by those in authority, the ones >except for their victims. Right, I knew those. Much too well. "All sorts of things, horrid things, went on which at an ordinary school would have been found out and stopped in half a term; but at this school they weren't. And even if they were, the people who did them were not expelled or punished. The Head said they were interesting psychological cases and sent for them and talked to them for hours. And if you knew the right sort of things to say to the Head, the main result was that you became rather a favourite than otherwise." So begins my fav. C.S. Lewis book: "The Silver Chair." During that miserable period in my life, I really loved the book because Lewis had bullies down pat. I remember thinking, "Just wait till I write a book about you, and expose you for what you really are. You'll be sorry then." But, in regards to all the chilling evidence about Fred and George, they do seem to be Dumbledore's pets. Cindy noted that they get away with much more than Draco. I would like to point out that they are the only students Dumbledore publically favours. Dumbledore has long chats with Harry in private, but he'll interrupt his public speeches to talk to Fred and George, stare pointedly in their direction during the same etc. >A case can be made for the twins' assault on the >Slyths on the train at the end of GoF as "retributive" to be sure, but what >about Malcolm Baddock? What about Professor Quirrell? And what about Percy? >The twins aren't picking on Percy because he has injured them terribly through >any particular action he has taken against them. They're picking on him >because he is *vulnerable,* and because they have identified some trait that > makes him, to their mind, "fair game," thus enabling them to rationalize their >behavior. In Percy's case, that trait happens to be pomposity. But what if it >had instead been ugliness? Or intellect? Or talent? Or timidity? Or what if it had been a humourless obsession for Quidditch? If you want an illustration of the maliciousness in the twins' attitude towards Percy, you should look at the twins' attitude towards Oliver Wood. Wood, it is made clear throughout the books, is humourless (though funny for us to read), quite arrogant in regards to the importance of his pursuit in relation to peoples' lives, and completely obsessed to the point of boring people. But, Fred and George, you see, are interested in Quidditch. Their approach to Wood's peculiarities is really funny, light-hearted, and friendly. They gently dig at Wood's foibles. A good example would be their recital of Oliver Wood's tense opening speech in Harry's first game. Oliver retorts by telling them to "Shut up!" Now, I find it quite telling that in the Potterverse, "Shut up!" seems to be a gentle inoffensive almost endearing form of adress among boys. (And in my family as well, I must say.) Our first Percy/twins exchange reminds me of this. Fred and George make fun of Percy's pride at being a prefect, and Percy tells them to shut up. I wouldn't say there was much resentment between them at that point. Later in the book, there is the heartwarming sweater scene, where it's obvious that Percy has dropped in because he wants to be with the rest of the family, and that Fred and George really treasure their older brother. But things change. As Elkins once asked, can you picture Fred and George making Percy spend Christmas with them now? Not in GoF, at any rate where Percy's brothers keep as far away from him as possible. Now, the whole Ron/Percy dynamic is fascinating enough, but I would suggest that it bears little relation to the F&G/Percy dynamic. There's a lot more emotion between Ron and Percy. There are great displays of pride, cruelty, loathing, and love between those two. I once ventured that I believe Ron and Percy to be very similar in character. On which of course I was asked for details. But it is a post I've never got around to writing. Fred and George, on the other hand, have no connection with Percy, as far as I can see. Where Ron is sincerely bothered by Percy, the twins seem to find their brother amusing, a target for their jokes, and most disturbingly, a pawn in the war against their mother. "Percy, the perfect prefect," says one of the twins when their mother is trying to correct them for their illegalities. Obviously, Mrs. Weasley has been holding up Percy as a standard of behaviour, and Bill and Charlie as well. But Percy can be got at. The very unfunny relentless teasing of Percy at the beginning of PoA is a case in point. They are quite obviously ticked off with their mother's pride in their brother. Therefore, "How're we getting to King's Cross tomorrow, Dad?" asked Fred, as they tucked into a sumptuous chocolate pudding. "The Ministry's providing a couple of cars," said Mr. Weasley. Everyone looked up at him. "Why?" said Percy curiously. "It's because of you, Perce," said George seriously. "And there'll be little flags on on the bonnets, with HB on them - " "-for Humungous Bighead," said Fred. Everyone except Percy and Mrs. Weasey snorted into their puddings." Oh yes, Percy really was just asking for that one, wasn't he? So remarkably witty too. But, as many listies have hastened to say, going after your siblings is perfectly acceptable behaviour, and makes everyone love each other ever so much so more. Well, it doesn't. Let's face it, of the families we know are all the adult siblings very cozy with each other? One of the worst bullies I know is a cousin who makes the exact excuse that he can behave in any way towards his brother. Even between siblings who seem friendly enough, there is still a good deal of resentment over childhood wrongs. And, as Penny has pointed out, Percy's coming out of it so splendidly, isn't he? Another note from the Fred and George file: (Page 493 GoF) "Then Fred said abruptly, "I've told you before, Ron, keep your nose out if you like the shape it is." Eileen From pennylin at swbell.net Sun Aug 25 23:16:37 2002 From: pennylin at swbell.net (Penny Linsenmayer) Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2002 18:16:37 -0500 Subject: Fred & George Step on Draco - Big Deal References: Message-ID: <072d01c24c8d$7dc38320$4f5ffea9@cq5hs01> No: HPFGUIDX 43156 Hi -- Bboy said: <<<<<<2.) Stepping on Draco- was not a physical assault, it was an act of supreme disrespect. A disrespectful act against someone who under the circumstances did not deserve much respect. In Japan, there is a type of massage where the person giving the massage walks on your back. It's considered quite relaxing and enjoyable. In martial arts class, we used to walk on each other's stomach to strengthen out abdominal muscles. So being stepped on is a long long way from an assault. Now with out a doubt, you can step on a person in ways that are intended to cause damage, but I don't see the twins, acting with the intent to cause damage or pain or harm. Keep in mind that in the examples of being step on that I gave, the people are conscious, and suffer no pain or harm, and in one case, actually feel pleasure. Certainly, stepping on Draco wasn't very nice, but I would never consider it an attack or an assault, and I can't/won't believe that it was done with the intention of causing harm.>>>>>>>>>> So, let me get this straight. The Twins (and the Trio) set off a series of "harassment curses" intended to annoy Draco & cronies but not really do any real harm. But, the cumulative effect is to knock their antagonists all unconscious & unable to defend themselves further. So, on the way out, they decide to give Draco a little back massage as a means of making up? Yes, I do understand that the examples you give above are clearly evidence that someone *can* be stepped on as something other than physical assault. But, George was not giving Draco a back massage. He wasn't trying to tone Draco's back muscles. The *intent* was clearly not to use stepping on/walking on Draco's body as a means of therapy or exercise. He was stepping on him when he was already unconscious, and it was, IMO, equivalent to what Draco did to Harry earlier in GoF: cursing his opponent when his back was turned. Is there any real difference, ethically, between cursing someone when their back is turned, and cursing them or otherwise causing them harm or disrepect when they are unconscious? Not in my book. I'm thinking Moody wouldn't have thought it very chivalrous or noble or brave if he'd seen George trodding on Draco's unconscious body as he exited the compartment. And, as Cindy pointed out, *Harry* didn't do this. It quite clearly was possible to exit the compartment *without* stepping on their antagonists. <<<<<<<3.) The kick - they rolled, pushed, and kicked Draco & Co out into the hallway outside the train compartment. THEY DID NOT "KICK HIM WHEN HE WAS DOWN". The 'kicked' part was not an assault. It was not an attack on Draco with any intent to cause harm or pain. Kicked in this case means they pushed and rolled him out using their foot. It was by no means a kick in the most common sense of the word kick. They intent was to simply get Draco out of their compartment.>>>>>>>> Wouldn't it have made more sense to describe them as nudging Draco et al out of the compartment if that's what JKR wanted the reader to envision? The word "kick" has a different connotation to me. <<<<<>>>>>> OR, here's a thought. Rather than physically assaulting Draco everytime he resorted to insults & bullying, wouldn't it be far more effective, far less violent, far more healthy and far more socially acceptable if Ron (and others) started pointedly ignoring the remarks and walking away? The Hermione approach .... Again, I really think the point of Elkins' original post was more to examine the Twins in isolation, and why it's suddenly devolved into who is the bigger bully in the series and who is the bigger victim is a mystery to me. I think Draco *is* a Bully. No doubt about it. Yes. An ineffective bully for the most part, but a bully all the same. Are the Twins bullies? I'm not so sure I'd go *that* far, though I do think they are incredibly insensitive and unperceptive in many cases. I do think that Catherine made some great points in their defense. But, I still find them overall to be more insensitive than anything else. Penny [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From lilac_bearry at yahoo.com Mon Aug 26 02:47:34 2002 From: lilac_bearry at yahoo.com (Lilac) Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2002 19:47:34 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Cho is Ever-So-Evil (was Re: Cho's possible betrayal) Message-ID: <20020826024734.64788.qmail@web40308.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 43157 I wrote: --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Lilac wrote: > What if Cho betrays Harry to Voldemort out of revenge for Cedric's death? She is very vulnerable right now, and could probably be very easily manipulated by the dark side to help them get to the person who "brought" Cedric to the graveyard. We all know what really happened and that Harry is not to blame, but everybody else knows just what Dumbledore told them...that Cedric was killed by Voldemort. How hard would it be for Lucias Malfoy, or some other DE who might be from Ravenclaw (they *can* be from other houses, you know, like Pettigrew from Gryffindor) to tell her some tall-tale of how Harry jumped behind Cedric to miss being hit by the AK, or that he knew that the cup was a portkey, or any other story, just to get her to do what they want? > > And what *would* they want? For Cho to get close to Harry, gain his trust (and even love) and take a trip off Hogwart's grounds (perhaps to Hogsmeade through one of the tunnels), where he wouldn't be under Dumbledore's and Hogwart's protection. Then, amazingly, Greg replied (I usually don't get replies to my posts; not very many original ideas...): <<>> Why is this? Does every ever-so-evil person need to be redeemable? Is it because she is pretty? Okay, so I'm jumping the gun here...no, Cho's *not* evil....not *yet*, anyway..... <<>> How about when Harry asked "Wangoballwime?" He had a conversation of 15 words or more with her! Actually, you have a point with the "beauty is only skin deep" thing. No, Harry doesn't really know her. He *was* smitten with her before Cedric's death, but now he doesn't get butterflies in his tummy when he looks at her (like at the closing feast). <<<>> Yes, I agree with you here. I think a true H/Cho with Harry being the pursuer is out of the question. But what if Cho pursued him? And they became friends first? Hey, if she's getting tutorials from Voldemort, who charmed Ginny with the diary, she could certainly learn how to charm Harry enough to get him out Hogwarts. And maybe she *can* redeem herself...she stops whatever might happen to Harry by jumping in front of an AK at the last second, for example. I don't know why I like this Cho is ever-so-evil idea. Maybe it's a sick, twisted attempt to get back at all those Barbie Doll girls who were really ugly on the inside.... Lilac (whose Mom used to tell her, "Beauty is only skin deep, but ugly goes down all the way to the bones." ...refering to the "ugly" on the inside) ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~ "Tut, tut --- hardly any of you remembered that my favorite color is *lilac*. I say so in Year with the Yeti." --Gilderoy Lockhart, COS --------------------------------- Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bard7696 at aol.com Mon Aug 26 03:09:31 2002 From: bard7696 at aol.com (darrin_burnett) Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 03:09:31 -0000 Subject: Some predictions before I go Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43158 In a shameless attempt to keep this canon-related, I will write a few predictions for how the series will turn out before I leave a personal message. Soon-to-be RIP or SS (Sans Soul, AKA Dementorized) * Hagrid * At least two of the nine Weasleys * Fudge * Narcissa Malfoy (fits with my Snape and Narcissa Sitting in a Tree theory) * Lupin (note, I don't pick a side) * A Dursley * Of course... Voldemort and most of the DEs. * Draco (one can only hope) Random predictions: * Harry lives, marries a girl we haven't met yet, and leaves England * Hermione becomes Headmistress of Hogwarts, marries Ron * Ron becomes Minister of Muggle Affairs * Percy betrays, repents, and is accepted back. * Snape finally pays off his debt to Dumbledore, leaves Hogwarts altogther and moves to Eastern Europe to perfect his cure for vampirism. Becomes so famous for his work on the cure and his role in the fall of Voldemort that he gets his own wizard card. * Dumbledore retires in peace * Norbert the Dragon has some role in the climax * Neville becomes Herbology teacher AND Head of Gryffindor House * The Twins have children of their own who put them through as much grief as they have put Molly and Arthur through. OK, I think that's enough. As I've told others in personal notes, I am taking an indefinite, perhaps permanent leave from the site. No, I'm not being thrown out for my recent stridency, though I wonder how far ahead of the hounds I am. :) Seriously, I apologize to those I've offended with my vehemence and ask their forgiveness. My workload has doubled recently, and other events in my life have cut into my personal time. I simply have to cut certain things out because I cannot devote the time I feel is required. So, thank you for complimenting my corny taglines, or my constant search for band names, and my acronyms, filks, and vigorous attempts to keep those Gryffindors from getting too bad a name. Take care, Darrin Burnett From jmmears at comcast.net Mon Aug 26 03:19:08 2002 From: jmmears at comcast.net (serenadust) Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 03:19:08 -0000 Subject: Fred, George, Harry, Ron & Hermione-all bullies? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43159 I've been away for a while and have made myself, in a very anal- retentive, Percyish way, read every one of the 700+ posts which were written in my absence. It's been surprising to me how durable this particular thread has been, and notable how strongly so many people feel about this topic. I must say from the start that I was very impressed by the passion of Elkins post (as usual) as well as how well reasoned her arguments are. In fact, when I finished it, I found that even I had come to like the twins a little less. This was dismaying, since I'm very fond of Fred and George as I am of all the Weasleys, so I decided after reading all the back and forth arguements, to go back to the books to see if I've missed some subtle undertones to the twins antics. In considering the ton-tongue toffee incident, I have to admit feeling a bit sorry for Dudley. I've always loathed him, of course, but in reviewing the canon I notice that he hasn't actually bullied Harry since CoS, and even then, he only taunts him for not having received birthday greetings from anyone at school. By GoF, his life has definitely taken a drastic turn for the worse. He seems to have left Harry alone for years, has become morbidly obese, and is completely miserable as a result of the draconian diet he's had forced on him. So, in light of this, are Fred and George bullies? No, no more than Sirius Black was in terms of the "prank" played on Snape (please, let's not get into that one again), or the trick Hermione played on Crabbe & Goyle in CoS. In each case, the weakness of the target (I refuse to call them "victims"; that word is used far too promiscuously IMO in this discussion, and it's extremely disrespectful to the suffering of true "victims" to do so) is used against him/them in order to put one over on them. In real life, yes, Dudley could have choked on a 4 foot tongue and Crabbe and Goyle could very well have stopped breathing while stuffed in a closet under the influence of a very strong potion. So if you take the position that F&G are bullies in this instance, then I guess Hermione is one too. I have seen the term "mean-spirited" used to describe F&G's antics, but for the life of me, I don't see it as I understand the term. Is there any indication in canon that anyone is frightened or intimidated when they come on the scene? As far as I can tell, everyone is always glad to see them. They are prime instigators for all the late-night parties and absolutely live to create a good time for others as well as themselves. In fact, they are making it their life's work. If anyone would be upset by them, it would be Neville, who I think we can all agree is prime bully-bait. I mean, the poor kid practically has a target drawn on him back, but he seems to be as amused by the canary creams as anyone else. He is not made an object of ridicule by this incident, and is actually the first to involuntarily demonstrate what apparently becomes a popular pastime (temporary canary-hood). To be a bully is to be mean-spirited in the true sense of the word. Bullies have no real interest in bringing anyone else pleasure, unless it's as a by-product of their true goal which is causing misery to their *victims*. There are several prime examples of bullies in these books, but Fred and George are by no means among them IMO. To be a bully you must wish to cause harm, pure and simple. As far as the incident on the train goes, people do seem to have a problem with the multiple curses thrown at Malfoy and Co. by the trio, as well as the twins. One post (sorry but I can't recall whose) suggested that they should have informed an adult instead. Really? Which adult do you think would have been appropriate? The trolley lady, perhaps? Maybe, telling the boys death-eater fathers would improve their behavior? In truth, all kids (and I still consider the 16/17 year old twins to be kids, in spite of the insistance of some posters they they are all but adults) know that in dealing with *real* bullies (and Malfoy and Co are worse than bullies by now, IMO), adults are all but useless. The standard line in school is always to go tell a teacher or administrator when someone picks on you, but children who actually try this quickly find out that this policy usually makes the situation worse. One of the best things about the Potter books is that JKR so totally gets this. The kids in these stories understand that the solutions to their problems lie in themselves and their friends. What happens to Malfoy, C,&G is a prime example of cause and effect, and it's the only type of treatment that makes an impression on true bullies. If Fred and George are bullies because they stepped (NOT stomped) on the bodies of M,C&G, then Harry, Ron and George are also bullies for kicking, rolling and pushing the unconscious boys out into the corridor, and Hermione and the boys are bullies for their treatment of C&G in CoS. You can't have it both ways. Jo Serenadust, Weasley-defender From drednort at alphalink.com.au Mon Aug 26 04:06:25 2002 From: drednort at alphalink.com.au (Shaun Hately) Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 14:06:25 +1000 Subject: Fred and George: Bullies... well, yeah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3D6A35E1.26202.1F07606@localhost> No: HPFGUIDX 43160 I've been following the discussion on whether or not Fred and George are bullies or not with some interest - and thought I'd put in my two cents. I had to ask for permission to refer to something I discuss here, so it's taken a bit of time (mainly because I couldn't decide whether or not it was worth the time to ask - I got a reply very quickly). I've mentioned on OT-Chatter that I have some expertise in the area of school bullying - I have three published articles on the subject, and I serve on government committees devoted to this issue. I was also the victim of severe bullying at school which is one reason I got involved in the issues. The thing is, as part of the work I do in this area, I have access to articles, papers etc, published around the world on this issue - including some material that hasn't been published. One such piece is a draft document which *may* be used at some point in the future in British schools - it's being written for distribution to schools to help them identify problems and suggest solutions - it's still in an early draft form. It identifies about a dozen different categories of bully (the basic idea behind it is is that bullying can take different forms and occur for different reasons, and a necessary step in dealing with it is to recognise the form as different forms require different remediation). To assist in identification, for some categories (eventually it may be for all categories but it isn't complete), they give examples of the type from literature or television - and Fred and George are listed as examples of one of the types - the "non-malicious bully". So the idea of whether or not they are bullies is receiving some high level attention - and at least some people think they are. The non-malicious bully typically engages in teasing, or practical jokes, and is non- malicious because they do not realise that they are hurting someone. They don't mean any harm. They don't intend to cause anybody any real distress. They are typically a *very* easy group to work with, because as soon as they are made aware of the fact that they are upsetting people, they tend to modify their behaviours - because they are not malicious. They lack sensitivity towards others feelings. Bullying is in the eye of the beholder - if a person feels they are being bullied, then they are. That's a common principle used in most anti-bullying work today - if a person feels they are being bullied, then they are - whether or not the person committing the act that makes them feel that way, realises it or not (and, lest anyone feels the need to point out that taken too far, that can lead to problems, we know it can - it's intended as a general principle true in most cases, not an ironclad rule that is true in absolutely every case). The correlation to that is that if a person *doesn't* feel they are being bullied, then they generally are not (again, it's a general principle, not an ironclad tule). So practical jokes often aren't bullying - if all involved - perpetrator and victim - find them genuinely funny and not hurtful, that's not bullying - but if the victim is hurt by them, then it is. It may not be a serious case, it may not be one in which fault should be levelled at the 'bullies' - but it's a problem that needs to be dealt with (and with non-malicious bullies, the most effective way *generally* is to simply explain to them the effect they are having). Fred and George are considered to fall into this category because they seem 'careless' about who they effect. If they only targeted people they knew wouldn't really care, they wouldn't fit this category - as it is, they seem to target indiscriminately. Couple this with some of the incidents, we've seen - the hissing of the Slytherin boy, the tricking of Dudley, etc - they would generally be considered bullies (though their actions against Draco are less clear cut - provocation does have an impact). Are they *serious* bullies likely to cause great harm? Probably not - but virtually any act of bullying can escalate into serious harm. Do they deserve to be punished? Probably not, on current thinking - but by the criterias used now, certainly somebody should be talking to them, to ensure they are aware of the impact they could have - intentional or not. Yours Without Wax, Dreadnought Shaun Hately |webpage: http://www.alphalink.com.au/~drednort/thelab.html (ISTJ) |email: drednort at alphalink.com.au | ICQ: 6898200 "You know the very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. They don't alter their views to fit the facts. They alter the facts to fit the views. Which can be uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that need altering." The Doctor - Doctor Who: The Face of Evil | Where am I: Frankston, Victoria, Australia From cindysphynx at comcast.net Mon Aug 26 04:15:03 2002 From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (cindysphynx) Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 04:15:03 -0000 Subject: TBAY The Missing 24 hours, the untold story In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43161 "FIRE!!!" "But Captain ?" Dicentra objected. "You *heard* me, sailor!" The Captain lunged for the Big Bang's joystick, roughly shoving Dicentra aside. "You fire that canon right now or I'll do it *myself!*" Dicentra caught her hand. "But . . . but Meg's a *newcomer* to the Bay, Captain! She has an acronym, she had her Wolf dig up some pretty solid canon, and she brought her very own racing boat into the Bay! That's pretty impressive and deserving of some *mercy,* Captain. Besides, I'm not sure this canon you have has the *range* to hit Meg's vessel! And ?" Dicentra lowered her voice. "I'm not sure we have the *heart* to hit it, Captain," she said evenly. "I don't *CARE!*" shrieked the Captain. "You fire that canon *right now* or I'm busting you down in rank!" Dicentra rose from the gunner's chair, her cold blue eyes fixed on the Captain. "You can't toss *me* in the brig. I have my own ship now, remember? Besides, I don't even *work* here, so you'll have to do your own dirty work for a change!" She flounced to the deck railing and flung herself overboard, landing with the barest of a splash and stroking vigorously into the night. The Captain heaved a labored sigh. "It is *impossible* to get good help these days," she muttered. "Never mind. I'll launch this canon *myself.*" The Captain took careful aim at the T.H.E. F.I.R.S.T. M.E.M.O.R.Y. F.R.I.E.N.D. (Taking Harry Extremely Fast Into Really Secure and Trustable Mother, Embracing Molly who Opts to Receive the Youngster, Friendship Resulting, Interpretates Evanescing, Nuisant Day) as it darted merrily about the Bay, buzzing the other boats, nearly capsizing several of the more humble vessels. The Captain hunched over Dicentra's neatly penciled notes, preparing to calculate the exact trajectory and velocity required for a single canon to sink the racing boat straight to the very deepest part of Theory Bay. Suddenly, she paused, her brow furrowed. This would ?- this would involve *math,* she realized. Shaking her head grimly, she thought better of attacking outright and resolved to negotiate with Meg directly. The Captain apparated into the T.H.E. F.I.R.S.T. M.E.M.O.R.Y. F.R.I.E.N.D., lunging awkwardly toward Meg, who stood proudly before its helm. "Meg," the Captain said, "you know this whole theory you've created in Message 42,568 to account for the Missing 24 hours? You know, the idea that Hagrid gave Harry to Molly before later taking him to Dumbledore and McGonagall in the first chapter of PS/SS?" "It's simply *Marvelous,* isn't it Captain!" Meg breathed, tightening her grip on the racing boat's controls. "Can you *believe* no one has ever proposed this theory before? No one! Not one single soul in over 43,000 messages! I mean, I just *got* here, and that whole theory was *lying* there, just waiting for someone to make a go of it. It ?- it's almost too good to be true!" She gave the wheel a spirited twirl, causing the racing boat to lurch violently to port. "Actually," the Captain said as she tightened her grip on the nearest railing, "being *too good* is not the problem." The Captain forced a toothy smile, remembering the days not so long ago when she herself could become excited by a wholesome new theory. "I mean, it's good all right. Very good. A very nice start, really. It's just ? " "Just what?" Meg's eyes narrowed with suspicion. "It's just ? well, you ? you failed to perform a *Bang* assessment, sailor!" the Captain chuckled, clapping Meg on the back. "Don't take it personally ? it could happen to anyone. But you can't just trot out a new theory ? no matter how good it is ? without a proper Bang assessment. We have *standards* around here, you understand that, don't you?" "But ?- " "Here, let me help you sort out your Banging," the Captain said easily. "See, if Hagrid gave Harry to Mrs. Weasley, where's the Bang there? What? She has Harry share a crib with Ron? They fight over Ron's hand-me-down teething toys? She takes good care of Harry and then ?- what? She doesn't do anything in 10 years to follow up? Wouldn't she want to see if the boy is OK, perhaps? "Not only that," the Captain went on, "but Mr. Weasley and Ron's older brothers seem not to have any idea that Mrs. Weasley helped save Harry's neck that fateful night. If Mrs. Weasley had possession of Harry for an entire 24-hour period, wouldn't Mr. Weasley and maybe Bill and Charlie have some memory that a child turned up on their doorstep for a single day and then vanished? I mean, what's the *point* of it all? Where is this new theory *going?*" Meg cast her eyes downward, the racing boat slowing to a pitiful crawl as her foot eased on the accelerator. "But . . . but . . . there might be a Bang coming soon. Like, in the next book. Or the next. Or maybe the one after that. It could happen, you know," she finished awkwardly. The Captain looked away from Meg's watery green eyes, feigning interest in a forlorn tree visible on shore. "I'm sorry. I know this hurts. Especially if this is your first spin around the Bay. But it simply has to be done. See, I think we're missing a prime opportunity for a really good Bang here. "Now, who besides Mrs. Weasley might be a good candidate for having cared for a child around Harry's age that night? Can we think of someone who has experience caring for children, someone with whom Dumbledore has a relationship, someone experienced in law enforcement, someone Dumbledore figured he could trust?" Meg straightened suddenly, brushing the back of her hand across her reddened eyes. "Mrs. Crouch?" she offered tentatively. "Well, maybe. Maybe. But Mrs. Crouch doesn't have a child Harry's age, so in that sense maybe she isn't as well-equipped for the job as Mrs. Weasley. And based on what we see of Mrs. Crouch in the Pensieve, she hardly has nerves of steel. She does seem like the type who might Crack under pressure, so I don't think Dumbledore would trust her." "But who, then?" asked Meg. "Well, there is one more good candidate left. A candidate who is potentially very Bangy, very mysterious, who is mentioned in GoF but hasn't been given any important role yet, a candidate who had a son who is around the same age as Harry." "The . . . . the . . . . could it be . . . no, it can't . . . you mean *The Longbottoms*?" Meg ventured, her eyebrows arched quizzically. "That's right ? the Longbottoms! They're *perfect!* Don't you *see?*" the Captain cried. "Frank Longbottom is this famous auror, and his wife is ? well, we don't know, really, other than we know they have a son Harry's age. Frank is in law enforcement and is apparently pretty good at it, so Dumbledore would have every reason to think Frank and his wife could keep Harry safe, especially with Frank being authorized to use Unforgivable Curses. So Dumbledore asked them to care for Harry while more permanent arrangements were being made that night. "Besides, this theory explains Dumbledore's reaction to Harry's questions about the Longbottoms. This is Albus Dumbledore we're talking about, right? Mr. Twinkle, right? Well, how does Dumbledore react the *minute* Harry raises the issue of the Longbottoms: 'Dumbledore gave Harry a very sharp look.' Then, when Dumbledore speaks, his voice was 'full of a bitterness Harry had never heard there before.' Oh, Dumbledore is upset and disgusted all right ? he's upset that the people he selected to care for Harry were later captured and tortured, possibly as a result of Dumbledore's decision to involve them in the first place." "What do you mean when you say 'as a result of Dumbledore's decision to involve them in the first place?'" Meg asked, her brow knitted. "Well, isn't it quite possible that Harry is the *reason* that the Longbottoms became famous that night -? because they were chosen to shelter The Boy Who Lived?" said the Captain. "So if I'm right, Dumbledore is bitter because his actions led to the sad fate of the Longbottoms. They wouldn't have been famous and targeted by the Pensieve Four sometime later had it not been for their cooperating with Dumbledore in Harry's care. No wonder Dumbledore is surprised that Neville has never mentioned this to Harry." "That's not bad," Meg said. "Not bad at all." "Oh, and it gets even better once we get to the Bang assessment. *Why* did Mrs. Lestrange go to the Longbottom home looking for Voldemort? Doesn't it make sense that the Pensieve Four sought out the Longbottoms because the Longbottoms had harbored Harry that night? See, that is not only Bangy, it answers a major story mystery ? how did the Pensieve Four become so convinced that the answer to Voldemort's whereabouts lay in the Longbottoms? Well, if the Longbottoms were a safe haven for the boy who defeated Voldemort, it is logical that the Longbottoms might know something -? anything at all, maybe even something they overheard -? about Voldemort's whereabouts." "Oh," Meg gasped, her eyes wide. "Oh, no. Dicentra *warned* me about you. She said you go around *stealing* other people's theories. You're one of those *pirates* I've heard so much about, aren't you?" She edged away from the Captain, her eyes darting nervously toward the GARBAGESCOW in the distance. "Oh, you can't believe those vicious *lies* people tell about me," the Captain laughed. "Listen, you can keep this theory if you want. I mean, it Bangs and all, so it could go on Big Bang. But if truth be told, Big Bang is getting a little bit crowded, what with all of those idle LOLLIPOPS crew members scrounging around for quarters. No, I think this new theory belongs right here on this snazzy racing boat you have." "But what will I call this new theory," Meg asked. "I'm not sure the Wolf will fetch me another acronym." "Oh, please. I don't do acronyms, remember?" The Captain glanced side to side and leaned in closer to Meg. "But I heard there is a fabulous acronym generator that they used to use over at LOLLIPOPS, just sitting there gathering dust. If you polish it up a bit, it ought to serve you very well indeed. I don't think you were around way back then, but the last owner got some *very* good results with it, all things considered." Cindy ************************ For an explanation of the acronyms and theories in this post, visit Hypothetic Alley at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/files/Admin20Files/hypoth eticalley.htm and Inish Alley at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/database? method=reportRows&tbl=13 From skelkins at attbi.com Mon Aug 26 04:43:42 2002 From: skelkins at attbi.com (ssk7882) Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 04:43:42 -0000 Subject: Fred and George: The Bullies You Do Know In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43162 My goodness! I get busy for a couple of days, and when I come back, what do I find? Um. Well. It's really difficult for me even to know how to *approach* this now, honestly, because I get the distinct impression that my original argument was, er, not very well understood. To say the least. That's my own fault, of course, but it does make it quite difficult for me to know how now to respond to what has been posted on this thread, as the vast majority of the arguments strike me as rather tangential, if not completely irrelevant, to the issue I was hoping to discuss. However. I will try. First off, it seems to me that there is a rather severe discrepancy between my own understanding and that of the rest of the list when it comes to the questions of both what bullying is and what traits typically characterize those who engage in it. Many of the operative definitions of bullying that others have either stated outright or implied in their responses on this thread are ones that I have *never* seen or heard of before. *Anywhere.* And while some of them seem reasonable enough to me, others, I must say, strike me as simply bizarre. Elsewhere, people seem to be in possession of a *very* different (and indeed, in many cases diametrically opposed!) conception of what bullies are like -- what characterizes them, what traits they typically exhibit, and so forth. Because the question of "what bullies are like" was absolutely *essential* to my original argument, this is an enormous problem. So. First off, a bit of clarification. What is bullying? What is "bullying behavior?" And what are bullies typically like? What traits typically characterize those who engage in bullying? **WHAT IS BULLYING?** The definitions of "bullying" with which I am most familiar are those which derive in one way or another from the definition used by the Norwegian Dan Olweus, whose research into the dynamics of schoolyard bullying has formed the basis for nearly all of the work done in this field in both Scandinavian and English-speaking countries over the course of the past thirty years. The Oregon Youth Violence Project, for example, uses the below definition when trying to evaluate whether or not conflict between students consitutes bullying: ----- A social, verbal or physical action is "bullying" if it fit the below criteria: -- is it behavior that could be reasonably assumed by a person of the instigator(s)' age, intellect, and experience to cause pain, discomfort, humiliation or embarrassment to the victim? -- has it happened more than once? -- has the instigator persisted in the behavior even after the victim has demonstrated that s/he resents this behavior or is bothered by it? -- is there a real or perceived power imbalance between the victim and the instigator(s), is the victim incapable of retaliating effectively in kind, or is the victim unusually and specifically vulnerable in the arena targetted by the behavior? If the answer to all four of these questions is "yes," then bullying is taking place. ----- This is a rather standard definition. Some variation or another of the above is used by nearly all professionals in the field of bullying prevention across Scandinavia, as well as in the US, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and the UK. I am unfamiliar with the definitions used in other places. Although this is a clinical definition, it matches my own layman's experience of what bullying is and what it entails perfectly. Indeed, I find it so intuitive that it honestly hadn't even occurred to me that it might not match up with the understandings of others on this list. My bad, apparently. So. According to this definition, have we seen the twins engage in bullying in canon? I would say that their treatment of Percy definitely qualifies as bullying. However, I register the objections that some people have raised on the grounds that special considerations must apply when considering the question of bullying between siblings. This is very true, and in fact, materials designed to help educators and other concerned adults to help prevent childhood bullying often have an entire *chapter* devoted to the question of bullying between siblings. Nonetheless, bullying can and does happen between siblings, and in the case of Percy and the twins, I think that it definitely *is* happening by the time of GoF. This is a complicated issue, though, and it's one that I have a LOT of thoughts about, so I'd like to return to it in another post, if that's all right with everyone. So outside of the family unit, have we seen the twins engage in bullying? No. I would say that we have not. We have seen isolated incidents that hint at bullying, but since one of the criteria for "bullying" is that the behavior be repetitive and persistent, one cannot positively identify bullying on the basis of such isolated incidents, no matter how suggestive they may be. One *can,* however, draw certain assumptions about character and inclination from isolated incidents, particularly when there are a number of these incidents in the canon and very little evidence to contradict them. This was the basis of my original argument: the twins *behave* like bullies. They act like bullies. They engage in bullying behavior, and they also exhibit nearly every one of the character traits that researcheres over the past forty years have identified as typical of people who bully. Therefore it is very difficult for me as a reader *not* to assume that, even if we do not see enough of their interactions with students outside of their in-group to form a definitive diagnosis, nonetheless they very likely are indeed bullies. This argument, however, depends on a certain understanding of what constitutes bullying behavior, as well as one of what bullies are typically like. So what *is* "bullying behavior?" **WHAT IS "BULLYING BEHAVIOR?"** "Bullying behavior" is behavior consistent with any *one* of the criteria listed in the above definition of bullying. In other words, although we cannot say for sure that bullying is taking place until all four of the criteria have been met, action that fulfills any one of the four should be considered a "red flag." It is behavior consistent with that of bullies, and it therefore ought to alert the witness to the possibility that bullying may be taking place, or that the person responsible for the behavior is at serious risk for becoming a bully. Bullying behavior would therefore include: targetting the weak or the vulnerable; disregard for signs of distress or protest on the part of a victim; any persistent and repetitive instigation of actions which might reasonably be assumed to cause pain, discomfort or humiliation to others; insensitivity to the emotional condition of other people. The twins exhibit all of these behaviors. If they are not *actually* bullying anyone outside of their family -- which they may well not be -- they nonetheless do exhibit all of the behavioral symptoms of those prone to bullying. They may or may not technically be "bullies." But do they engage in "bullying behavior?" Oh, yes. No question. That they most certainly do. **WHAT ARE BULLIES LIKE? WHAT CHARACTER TRAITS DO THEY MOST OFTEN POSSESS?** Here is where we seem to have run into the most profound difference of opinion. This is unfortunate indeed, as the understanding of what bullies are like was absolutely central to my original argument. There's been an enormous amount of research done on this subject over the past thirty years. Olweus' findings are commercially available. There's a nice overview of this research in Adair article from the New Zealand "Children Issues," v. 3 no. 1, 1999, which is available from the Children's Issues Centre of the University of Otago. Alternatively, the recently published (if rather insultingly and misleadingly titled) _Your Child: Bully or Victim?_ by Peter Sheras is a good layman's overview, as is the somewhat older _Bullies & Victims,_ by Fried and Fried. Both of these books are currently in print. Research into the psychological profiles of bullies in both Scandinavian and English-speaking countries has found that cross- culturally they exhibit the following traits: -- physically strong and/or coordinated -- socially popular -- assertive with both peers and adults -- high levels of physical courage -- very high levels of self-esteem -- impulsive -- feel little or no sympathy for victims (lack remorse) -- positive attitudes towards violence -- low levels of empathy -- difficulty recognizing or understanding their own and others' emotions -- competitive -- lack self-reflection -- resistant to compromise ("Empathy," in this context, refers to the ability to project oneself into the situation of someone very different from oneself and then to imagine how that person might feel or think. People with "low levels of empathy" find this a difficult imaginative exercise.) Eron et al at the University of Chicago, who have conducted a thirty year longitudinal study of schoolyard bullies and victims, also claim that bullies show a much higher tendency than other children towards dualistic thinking, and specifically towards thinking in terms of self-other dichotomies: us vs. them, in-group vs. out-group, etc. David Elkind of Harvard, whose findings confirm this, suggests that it may be this tendency which accounts for bullies' low empathy levels: they do not, he suggests, ascribe to "outsiders" quite the same human status they do to those they consider to be "like them," and they therefore not only find it difficult to identify with outsiders, but also resist attaching any real credence to their emotional responses, thus leading them to be able to make claims like "oh, it wasn't really bothering him," even when their victim has in fact loudly and repeatedly objected to mistreatment or even been reduced to tears. Eron and Elkind's findings are hardly as universal as all of the ones listed above, though, and Elkind's theory is by no means anywhere near universally accepted within the field. Apologies for this rather long digression, but I really felt that it was necessary, as so many of the objections to my claim that the twins are bullies seemed based in a *completely* different understanding of what traits are characteristic of bullies in the first place. -------- Now, back to the topic at hand. In my original message, I posited that Fred and George are characterized quite clearly in the text as bullies. They are popular, charismatic, athletic and self-confident, loyal to those they have designated members of their in-group, disdainful and hostile to those outside of that magic circle, poor at recognizing when their behavior is harming others, insensitive to others' feelings, lacking in any apparent self-reflexion, and prone to targetting the vulnerable and the weak without remorse. I pointed out places in the canon that had conspired to create this impression in my mind, places where we see hints to this aspect of their character, hints which strongly suggest to me that the twins do indeed engage in bullying, even if we have never actually seen firm evidence of this in the canon. I pointed out that while the Twins are indeed helpful to Harry, we have yet to see them be in the least bit pleasant to any student outside of House Gryffindor. Indeed, every single one of their interactions with an "out-group" student that we have yet seen in canon has been disdainful, mocking, unfriendly, or in some other way aggressive. This holds true not only for their interactions with the members of House Slytherin, but also for their interaction with Cedric Diggory, of House Hufflepuff. This is behavior characteristic of bullies, who tend (according to Eron and Enkind) to think in terms of "us vs. them," and to deny outsiders the same considerations that they afford to those within their own circle. Not only is their behavior towards people outside of their group hostile; their manner of speaking about those people is both disdainful and dismissive. This was my point in bringing up Draco and the dementor on the train. My point there was not to claim that the twins ought to go out of their way to be "nice" to Draco. (Who would *want* to go out of their way to be nice to Draco? He's horrid!) Rather, it was that the particular *tenor* of their disdain is utterly consistent with the way in which bullies think and speak about people outside of their in-group. (It is also, I might point out, very similar to the sneering tone with which Sirius Black always speaks of Severus Snape -- a character touch which has led more than one reader to deduce that Sirius himself might have been a bit of a bully back in his schooldays). I also pointed out that the twins -- large, strong, and self-assured teenaged boys -- have on more than one occasion been shown targetting boys much younger than themselves for mockery. They do not seem to have much of a sense of noblesse oblige. They do not balk at attacking people much younger or less powerful than they are, nor do they seem to see anything wrong with this behavior. This too is characteristic of people who bully others. When we do see the twins applying their "mischief" to an authority figure at Hogwarts, they have selected as their target the most vulnerable professor in the entire school, a man who is (as far as the twins know) in a state of magically-induced shell-shock. Knowing this about him, they nonetheless choose to throw snowballs at the back of his head from a hidden location. Bullies tend to hone in on other people's vulnerabilities. Even Harry, who is friendly with the twins, is aware of this aspect of their character: he fears to reveal vulnerability to them, for fear that they will exploit it in a way that he will find painful. In both the canon and the semi-canon of the schoolbooks, the twins are shown to exhibit a marked callousness towards animals. This applies not only to "wild" magical animals, like the salamander, but also towards their own brother's pets. They have already killed (or perhaps merely "lost") one of Ron's pets, and they dismiss his grief over the assumed death of Scabbers as insignificant and rather foolish. Callousness and lack of empathy are characteristic traits of those who bully others. In their harassment of their siblings, the twins seem to lack insight into the harm caused by their actions. The damaging effects of their behavior on their little sister Ginny must be pointed out to them before they are capable of appreciating that they are causing her injury. They similarly are either incapable of seeing the damage that their continued harassment of Percy is causing, or simply disinterested in it. If their treatment of Percy is not, in fact, malicious, then they must be turning a willfully blind eye to its effects on both his behavior and his emotional condition. This, too, is typical of bullies, who often lack both insight into their own motivations and attentiveness to the suffering of others. On the one occasion where the twins are called upon to display adult behavior -- in the train at the end of GoF -- they fail the test. They do not show much inclination to take on the mantle of adulthood. This immaturity is typical of bullies, whose lives tend to take a sharp downturn at the age of seventeen or eighteen, when they are forced to join the adult world, a world in which their manner of interacting with others does not reap at all the same rewards as it does in the school environment. People who were bullies as children are five times as likely (in the US) to develop a criminal record later in life than are children who did not bully others in school. Indeed, in GoF, we see the twins contemplate blackmail -- a criminal activity rather above and beyond the level of childish pranks -- when they find themselves frustrated by the adult world. Now for me, as a reader, all of these factors combine to create a certain impression of the twins. Namely, that they are bullies. They look like bullies, they act like bullies, they speak like bullies, they react to things in the same way that bullies typically do. In fact, the *only* way in which they are not written as bullies is that JKR has not actually shown us the twins *bullying* anyone. Then, she has not shown us very much of their interactions with the student body outside of House Gryffindor at all. For behavior to be technically bullying, it must happen repeatedly, and we have not been shown nearly enough of the twins' interactions with the rest of the school to know whether or not this has happened. I think, however, that all of the signs are there. If the twins are, in fact, *not* bullying students at Hogwarts, then they have done a remarkable job of showing every last sign of being bullies without...yet...quite...becoming such. They certainly fit the personality profile. They certainly exhibit bullying behaviors. They certainly are *depicted* as stereotypical bullies. In this respect, I tend to feel that the twins reflect a basic fact of life: you never perceive the Bully You Know as a bully at all, no matter how obviously he might fit the profile, because you are conditioned to take heed of the signs *only* when they appear in someone who doesn't like you, and who therefore seems likely to direct his hostility against you and yours. My Brave Defender is your Big Mean Bully. My Big Mean Bully is your All-round Nice Guy. Clearly, though, my reading of the twins is...er, idiosyncratic. To say the least. However, I must say that many of the objections to my reading strike me as a little bit difficult to understand. They seem to revolve on some *very* different ideas about bullies and bullying than the ones which I possess. I'll try to address a few of them here. 1) It's only bullying if it is motivated by malice. Hmmm. A tricky issue, this. See, some definitions of bullying do indeed include malice, the "intent to harm," as one of the requisite criteria. Others include it as only *one* of many the possible criteria on a "if five of the seven of these are true" type list. And then there are others which omit it altogether. You can make a case for malice as a requisite criterion for bullying, yes. I think, though, that there are very good reasons for omitting it as such. One of these reasons is simply that there are in fact *many* reasons that a child might choose to bully another child, and that many of these reasons often take precedence over the desire to do harm. A children might choose to bully, for example, primarily to ensure her own social popularity, or because she is afraid that if she isn't perceived by other children as a bully, then she might herself become the next victim. These motivations often supercede the desire to do harm. But does that make the bullying any less bullying? I don't think that it does. Another reason for discounting motive as a relevant factor here is that intent is impossible to prove. Bullies themselves very rarely explain their actions in terms of having wanted to hurt someone. Instead, they usually fall back on the old stand-bys: "he deserved it," "she was asking for it," "it didn't really hurt him," "it was all in fun," "can't she take a joke?" and so forth. Sometimes, when called upon to account for their actions, bullies will say that they just did it because they were bored, or because they thought that it would be funny. "Because it was funny" is not necessarily the same thing as malice. It could reflect simple callousness. But again, bullying is no less bullying just because its perpetrator is merely callous and insensitive, rather than malevolent or sadistic. This relates to the psychological characteristics of bullies, of course. Bullies tend, as a class, to be exceptionally poor at understanding their own emotions and motivations. They not only lack insight into other people's feelings, but also into their own. They are not self-critical about their behavior. So another problem with insisting on "intent to cause harm" as a proof of bullying is not only that it is impossible to prove malice, but also that even if malice *were* the primary reason for a bully's behavior, he would still likely to deny this not only to you, but also even to himself. I firmly believe, for example, that the twins' behavior towards Percy in the third and fourth books of the series is indeed quite evidently intended to cause him harm. If asked, however, I am equally sure that the twins themselves would attempt to rationalize it by claiming that they are trying to "help" Percy by their continual harassment. Similarly, I don't think that they'd be likely to show any great insight into the significance of the fact that they consistently target Percy on the exact same grounds for which Percy is praised or rewarded by their parents, or that every time Arthur or Molly give a sign of approval to Percy, retaliation from the twins is quick to follow. As readers, *we* can recognize these patterns and interpret them, but the twins do not recognize them, and likely would not acknowledge them even if confronted with them. Relying on the word of the aggressors as to their real motivations is really only of value if the aggressors are exceptionally self-reflexive, self- critical, and honest with themselves. Very few of us can claim to be all of those things -- I certainly can't -- and bullies as a class tend to be even less so than most. Bullies also tend to be *insensitive* to other people's emotions. They are not skilled at anticipating others reactions, and they lack impulse control. This is a dangerous combination, because it does make it quite possible for people to cause tremendous harm to others without really "meaning to." That doesn't mean that they aren't bullies. They are still bullying, so long as they *ought* to have known that their behavior would be harmful. In fact, one of the reasons that so many countries funnel so much money into bullying prevention programs for their schools is really not so much to protect the victims as it is to teach bullies to behave themselves. Bullies don't tend to fare very well in later life. They all too often wind up in prison. This could just be because they're malicious, of course, but to some extent, it may also reflect a profound failure of the sort of people who bully to comprehend the ramifications of their actions. People like that *need* to be taught to anticipate how their behavior affects others, as well as how to control their desires to engage in hurtful behavior, not only for the protection of their victims, but also for their own protection. The main reason, though, to leave aside the question of intent when evaluating bullying behavior is that to take intent under consideration privileges the experience of the bully over that of the victim. Cindy touched on this issue here, when she wrote: > I have to wonder whether the conduct of the twins is every bit as > hurtful to those on the receiving end as Draco's taunts about the > Weasleys' poverty. Well, yes. That's just it. Whether or not behavior is "bullying" depends on whether or not it is bothering the *victim,* and that's not a question that it is the aggressor's job to answer. Draco Malfoy, for example, cannot get off the Bully Hook by claiming that taunting Muggle-borns isn't really bullying because those Mudbloods aren't fully human and therefore don't really feel pain the way we purebloods do. That *is* indeed one of the classic justifications of bullies. But it's a poor justification. An adolescent boy of normal intellect really *ought* to know that taunting causes distress to other human beings regardless of their heritage. That is knowledge that someone of his age and experience "can be reasonably assumed" to possess. Furthermore, the reactions of those he has taunted *show* that his actions cause them pain. His actions therefore constitute bullying, no matter what he might self-report as his true intent or degree of intended malice. Similarly, in GoF the twins *ought* to know that their pranks cause Percy distress. They are old enough and bright enough to understand that continual harassment bothers and upsets people. They have had ample opportunity to observe that Percy *is* distressed by their actions, that they have a marked and negative effect on his ability to cope, and that they are causing him harm. He protests and he objects; he complains to his parents; he locks himself in his room. He is not capable of retaliating in kind -- indeed, he does not retaliate in any way at all. He is rendered vulnerable by virtue of having no real allies among his siblings, as well as by virtue of being under unusual stress due to having just started his adult life. And yet the twins do not desist. To my mind, this constitutes bullying. The twins' claim (or the claims of their apologists) that they "mean no harm," or that they are "only trying to help him" is not a relevant factor here, because in fact, they ought to be capable of recognizing that they are *doing* harm, and that their actions are not helping him in the least. Yet, they still do not desist. This makes their behavior "bullying." Turning a blind eye to the *actual* (as opposed to the intended) outcome of your actions does not make you not a bully. Indeed, this sort of behavior is absolutely typical of bullies. 2. Bullies suffer from low self-esteem. Abigail wrote: > A bully, to my mind, is a power freak. A person who feels the need > to humiliate and terrify others in order to feel powerful. This > behaviour usually stems from low self esteem... It's very comforting to think that bullies must suffer from low self- esteem, but I'm afraid to say that it's a myth. Study after study has shown that bullies actually have *much* higher levels of self- esteem than other children do. It is one of the distinguishing characteristics of children who bully others. (There *is* a type of bully, often known as the "victim bully," who typically does suffer from low self-esteem. Victim-bullies ::coughSnapecough:: only account for a small percentage of bullies overall, though.) That Fred and George do not seem to suffer from self-esteem problems does not mean that they can't be bullies. On the contrary, it helps to support my impression that they very well might be. 3. Bullies Aren't Callous Abigail wrote: > At their best, Fred and George are being playful and high-spirited, > and are unaware of the fact that they might be causing pain to > others. At their worse, they are almost unbearably callous. Actually, being "unbearably callous" is a very common trait found in bullies. Lack of sensitivity to others' emotions is one of the classic characteristics of bullies. Again, this doesn't necessarily mean that the twins *are* bullies -- you can be insensitive and still not be a bully -- but it does mean that they match the profile. 4. If your intention is to change someone's behavior, then it isn't really bullying. Darrin wrote: > Inter-sibling rivalries are normal and this is Fred and George's > way of dealing with "perfect Percy", who is obnoxious. Actually, "because he was getting on my nerves" is a *very* common reason for bullies to give when called upon to account for their actions. It's also a defense that adults often find highly sympathetic, because the sad fact of the matter is that many children who are the victims of bullying really *are* irritating, annoying, rude, or in some other way socially obnoxious. In the literature, children who match this description are referred to as "provocative victims" -- which is really just psych-speak for "those kids who are just begging for it." What makes bullying maladaptive behavior, however, is that fact that it does not address the problem of social irritation in an acceptable or an effective manner. Not only is it intrinsically damaging; it also doesn't solve the problem of social friction. In fact, it usually just makes the problem much worse. Intervention for bullies is often designed to focus on *precisely* this problem. If someone's behavior is irritating you, there are a number of useful ways to go about trying to get them to stop. Bullying is not one of them. It is maladaptive behavior, and it often reflects distorted thinking. We see this in the canon, I think, with Percy and the twins. The more the twins tease and harass Percy, the more pompous and stuffy he becomes, because pomposity and strutting is Percy's way of dealing with stress. The twins, however, are incapable of recognizing this fact. Their "way of dealing" with Percy is therefore inherently counter-productive, and their inability to realize this fact is extremely typical of children who bully others in real life. 5. It's only bullying if physical assault takes place or is threatened. Darrin wrote: > There is no evidence they have physically harmed Percy, or even > seriously attempted to. Bullying does not have to involve physical assault or physical threat. Verbal bullying (teasing, insults) is by far the most common type of bullying. Fred and George don't have to beat people up to be bullies. 6. All Children Are Bullies. No. All children may be nasty little rotters with the *capacity* to bully, but they aren't all bullies. Most kids take part in a spot of bullying at some point in their lives, but that doesn't make them "bullies." Bullies are the kids who *regularly* instigate or take the lead in bullying behavior. Abigail wrote: > Am I the only person who is flashing on an early episode of Buffy > the Vampire Slayer, in which Xander is possessed by a hyena spirit > and begins acting quite cruelly? Oh, I just loved that episode, in spite of its cheese factor and its "spotted it a mile off" plot resolution. But one thing to keep in mind about Giles' line there, Abigail, is that for once, he was actually *wrong.* Even before they got possessed by the hyena spirits, those kids really weren't just your average normal sixteen year old students. They *were* the class bullies, and all of the other kids knew that they were the class bullies. Giles just didn't get that, because he didn't share the students' understanding of how the school's pecking order worked. Of course, I do take your point that the plots of early Buffy generally *are* rather blatant metaphors for real life high school horrors: in this case, one of your non-bully friends suddenly deciding to hang with the bullies, and then being mean to you in order to cement his new social status. But I think that there's a very big difference between "sometimes a student will decide to become a bully, and it's really scary and awful when that happens -- just like he's been possessed overnight by some evil spirit" and "all kids are bullies." I mean, I see a very big difference there. Draco is a bully. Dudley is a bully. Harry has the *capacity* to be a bully -- but he is not one. The verdict is still out on Fred and George, but much about their canonical depiction strongly *suggests* to me that they are indeed bullies. 7. Bullies can't themselves be the victim of bullying. Yes, they can be. In fact, they very often are. An important component in bullying is the power discrepancy between the bully and the victim. A kid who has the strength and size advantage to bully other children his own age can then be the victim of bullying when he relates to children older, stronger, or more powerful than himself. Darrin wrote: > And forgive me, but I have a hard time shedding a tear when a bully > like Dudley...gets it from a bigger bully. > That is what is happening. Yup. That's exactly what's happening, Darrin. I quite agree with you. Dudley is getting it from bigger bullies: namely, the twins. Quod Erat Demonstrandum. 8. Teasing between siblings isn't bullying. Yes, it can be. Teasing between siblings crosses the line into "bullying" when one of the siblings has repeatedly registered protests against the teasing, can not or does not retaliate in kind, and is obviously suffering on account of it -- and yet the teasing continues. That is bullying, even when it happens within the family. Christy (who I am sure would *never* take things as far with her siblings as Fred and George have taken things with Percy by the beginning of GoF) wrote: > I think it is safe to say that we can discount any pranks on Percy > as "proof" of the twins being bullies. . . .I constantly pull > pranks and spout wisecracks at my sisters. This is simply the > dynamics of the modern family. Yes, it is...up to a certain point. But by GoF, I think that things have gone *way* beyond that point. It seems clear to me that the Weasley family dynamic is in a good deal of trouble in GoF. Percy has become so deeply alienated from the rest of his family that he has chosen to transfer his filial loyalties onto his employer Crouch - - a man who doesn't even know his name. Indeed, when speculating about Percy's role in future canon, readers regularly phrase the issue as "will Percy side with Fudge or with his family?" rather than as "will Percy side with Dumbledore or with Fudge?" which might, one would think, be the rather more logical way to frame the question. We don't frame it that way, though, and I think that there is a reason that we don't. Percy's struggle throughout the series has always been one between his allegiance to his family and his allegiance to his extra-familial relationships (his prefect friends, the staff of Hogwarts, Penny, Crouch and the Ministry). I think that as readers, we are so often concerned about Percy precisely *because* we sense that the Weasley family dynamic has gone sour -- that it is no longer the benevolant or harmless or even beneficial dynamic that it used to be. Nicole (who really must never worry about disagreeing with me; after all, given the ban on "me toos," if we never disagreed then we would never get a chance to interact with each other!) wrote: > I really think that this is perfectly normal sibling rivalry. It struck me that way in PS/SS, certainly. The twins' teasing of Percy seemed very loving and good-natured to me there. I love the Christmas sweater scene and always have. It's touching and funny and sweet. But by the time we reach GoF, it seems very different to me. It doesn't seem "normal" at all to me anymore. The family dynamic in GoF comes across to me as very ugly, rancorous, and very damaging. This is subject matter for a post all its own, though, and I do plan to write one, as soon as I can get around to it. For now, though, let me just say that I really don't see the twins' interactions with Percy in GoF as normal or acceptable at all. By GoF, I think that it is bullying. 9. Bullies Are Cowards Darrin wrote: > A bully is a coward deep down. . . . .F&G aren't cowards. Sometimes they're only cowards *very* deep down. Bullies are cowardly, in that they pick on people weaker than themselves, but they often exhibit cowardice in no other arena. A high degree of physical courage is in fact one of the traits that consistently emerges as one shared by bullies in psychological studies. That Fred and George are brave does not mean that they can't be bullies. Many bullies are brave in every way *other* than in their habit of singling out the weak and the vulnerable for abuse. 10. There can be only one bully in any given school at one time -- and Draco is Hogwarts' bully. This, at any rate, seems to be the argument that Darrin has proposed for why Fred and George cannot be bullies. I can't say that I really understand this argument at all. Schools, even small schools, almost *always* have more than one bully among the student body. Then, I didn't understand a very similar argument when it popped up on the Hagrid thread a while back either. There, the argument seemed to be that Hagrid couldn't be a bad teacher, because Snape is a bad teacher. I didn't understand that one either, really. If Snape's teaching style is flawed, then how does that make Hagrid a good teacher? If Draco is a bully, then how does that make it impossible for Fred and George to be bullies? There can be (and usually is) more than one bully in a school at a time. More's the pity. 10. Whether or not it's bullying depends on the moral standing of the victim. I have no idea where this notion comes from. I have never seen a definition of bullying *anywhere* that takes the moral virtue or lack thereof of the victim into consideration. Relative power to bully? Yes. Degree of vulnerability? Yes. Ability to retaliate effectively in kind? Yes. Repetition of dynamic over time? Yes. Moral standing? Er...no. I don't see that as ever relevant to the question of whether or not bullying is taking place. 11. All bullies are racists. No, of course they aren't. You can be a bully without being a racist. Again, I have no notion where this one came from, although I get the impression that it derived from a faulty syllogism, one that went something along the lines of "Draco is a bully. Draco is a racist. Therefore, all bullies are racists," and then concluded with the assertion that in order to argue that Fred and George are bullies, one would therefore first have to prove that they are racists. Um. It's, er, a bit difficult for me to know how to address this, actually. See, I'm just not very good with arguments like this. Whenever I read them, they tend to make me feel just a bit like one of those computers in the cheesy old science fiction movies -- the ones that explode if you hand them a paradox to parse. "...does...not...compute...does....not..." ::hiss:: ::crackle:: ) But I gather that there actually *has* been some dispute over whether or not this is actually a logical fallacy. So I suppose that I'll try to address that issue. Only once, though. Only once. Okay. The best that I can really come up with here is to suggest that when one is in some doubt about the logic of a series of statements, it can sometimes help to replace the relevant variables with others that have less emotional resonance and about which the truth is in fact known -- and then to check to see if it still makes sense. So, for example, as a substitution for the syllogism above, we might try: "Elkins is a woman. "Elkins is an American. "Therefore, all women are Americans. "In order to prove that Pip is a woman, therefore, you will first have to prove that Pip is an American." I think that we can all agree that this doesn't really make any sense -- and that Pip, moreover, might greatly resent it if we tried to prove her American citizenship. (And if she expressed that resentment more than once, and yet we still persisted, we would be engaged in bullying behavior. ::apologetic grin at Pip::) So I'm afraid that I still don't understand the argument. That Draco is a racist has no bearing on the question of whether or not Fred and George are bullies. 12. Bullies are Unpopular. No. They usually aren't. Bullies usually enjoy a higher than average degree of social popularity up until their late teenaged years, when they start to lose their cache. It has been hypothesized that this happens in part because as children mature to become adults, they become both more idealistic and more empathic, and therefore stop finding the sort of behavior that bullies exhibit nearly so amusing or as appealing as they did when they were younger. This tendency might also account for the discrepancy that has been raised on a different thread between how children and adults might differ in their readings of the canon. HF wrote: > I guess one way to look at it is this: Why haven't Fred and George > been left with their heads in a toilet somewhere? I mean, they are > bigger than the younger kids, but certainly not bigger than the > seventh-years. If their pranks are so intolerable to people, one > would think the law of the playground would have stopped it. You must have grown up on a remarkably just playground. ;-) Bullies are almost always more popular than their victims. That is why they usually manage to get away with their behavior right up until the point at which some adult or other external authority steps in to make them stop. > If F&G were mean, nasty, and generally undesirable characters given > to bullying and harassing the weak, I don't think anyone in > Gryffindor would have stood for it. But they do! The times that we have actually *seen* Fred and George harassing the weak, everyone thinks that it's funny. Harry isn't outraged by Fred and George feeding the toffee to Dudley. No one at the Gryffindor table objects to them hissing at the Sorting Ceremony. Nobody objects to their throwing snowballs at Professor Quirrell. Everyone's having a blast with them while they send that salamander zooming around the common room. And Harry and Ron snicker right along with the twins when they persecute the stressed-out, on the edge, and *exceptionally* vulnerable Percy of GoF. Richelle summed it up really well right here. Richelle: > Well, my opinion on Fred and George may not amount to much, but I > just find them down right likeable. They're rude to people, sure. > But they usually deserve it! They're mean sometimes. Often even. > But 9 times out of 10 they're mischeviousness is aimed at something > we'd really like to see happen anyway. Yup. That's precisely how bullies get away with it. They select as their victims the people they believe that no one will bother to defend. HF: > Additionally, wouldn't it go against the grain to have people of > said description in Gryffindor, as "daring, nerve, and *chivalry*" > is their major descriptor? Aw, come on. The Gryffs are good kids on the whole, but they're hardly *saints,* are they? The Trio and Neville get ostracized by their housemates for losing all of those points in PS/SS. I don't get the impression that Lavender and Parvati are always perfectly sweet and kind to Hermione, either. And let's not even get into the infamous Prank. ("Down, boy!") Every group of kids has its bullies. I don't really think that the Gryffindors are so absolutely perfect as to warrant an exception to this general rule. Darrin: > That tells me that their personal charisma and the fact that people > realize it's just a joke, all in fun, no harm done, are working in > their favor. Yup. Bullies are usually charismatic, and they are usually popular, and the other members of their in-group usually *do* think that they are funny and harmless and nice. It's the people *outside* of their in-group who would beg to differ. One of the problems with bullying in the schools is that even the adults in authority often favor the bullies. Jenny touched on this here, when she wrote: > They are in Gryffindor, they are excellent athletes, they are > confident and they are nice to Harry. Is that why so many people > think they are funny and why people are so quick to excuse them? That's usually the way it works. But not always. Jenny wrote: > As a teacher, I have zero tolerance for bullying in my classroom. And *that* is how you put a stop to it. 50 points to Ravenclaw. -- Elkins From yrawen at ontheqt.org Mon Aug 26 07:04:40 2002 From: yrawen at ontheqt.org (yr awen) Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 03:04:40 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Fred and George: The Bullies You Do Know References: Message-ID: <002101c24cce$d9581e80$badef718@kzo.chartermi.net> No: HPFGUIDX 43163 Just to address a couple of the issues: 11. All bullies are racists. No, of course they aren't. You can be a bully without being a racist. Again, I have no notion where this one came from, although I get the impression that it derived from a faulty syllogism, one that went something along the lines of "Draco is a bully. Draco is a racist. Therefore, all bullies are racists," and then concluded with the assertion that in order to argue that Fred and George are bullies, one would therefore first have to prove that they are racists.<<<<<<<<<< I think it was Darrin who brought it up, but my understanding of his argument was that he was not attempting to set up a bully-equals-racist dynamic, but rather arguing against those who compare F&G's behavior to that of Draco. The gist of his argument was the difference in *motivation* between F&G and Draco's respective behavior, whether you consider it bullying or not. Namely, Draco taunts/belittles/harrasses the Trio for Hermione's status as a Muggle-born, for example, while F&G don't target their victims based on genetic criteria (the Ton-Tongue Toffee incident figured largely in this particular discussion, but I'll let you revisit that for yourself.) That spiralled into a side-discussion of the issue, best left unquoted here -- that, and it's almost 3am here and I'm not at the top of my argument. HF *DID NOT*, but someone else did, write: > I guess one way to look at it is this: Why haven't Fred and George > been left with their heads in a toilet somewhere? I mean, they are > bigger than the younger kids, but certainly not bigger than the > seventh-years. If their pranks are so intolerable to people, one > would think the law of the playground would have stopped it. Elkins: You must have grown up on a remarkably just playground. ;-) Just correcting a misattribution there. I think... I can't remember what I wrote, but I'm pretty sure I didn't write that :-) I think I can safely say I'd be the last person to trust in the parity of older schoolkids to keep the balance of playground power. Partly, that's because I was the kid who hung upside down on the monkey bars until she got a good buzz on from the blood rushing to her head. Anyway. I did say, to my chagrin: > Additionally, wouldn't it go against the grain to have people of > said description in Gryffindor, as "daring, nerve, and *chivalry*" > is their major descriptor? Elkins: Aw, come on. The Gryffs are good kids on the whole, but they're hardly *saints,* are they? The Trio and Neville get ostracized by their housemates for losing all of those points in PS/SS. I don't get the impression that Lavender and Parvati are always perfectly sweet and kind to Hermione, either. And let's not even get into the infamous Prank. ("Down, boy!")<<<<<<<<<< Okay, I'll buy that. But that's the only concession you're getting from me :-) And that's mostly because I'm a bit irritated at myself for quoting the Sorting Hat, of which I take a dim view, verbatim. ::writhes irritably:: I can't believe I *did* that. As a personal note, the reason why I do like F&G is because my next-door neighbor and friend, a boy who was the only other kid on the street close to my age who *wasn't* a sister, was, and still is to some extent, very much like F&G -- like F&G put together, if you can imagine that. A lot of the things he did were things I disapproved of, some things I got pretty angry at him for doing, and he did a couple things that made me seriously re-think our friendship (and almost break his legs.) He was pretty much... oh, why not? A bully. But we made it through the hell of being ostracized at school together and we're still close ::shrugs:: So I see a lot of F&G in him. And if that's too personal a statement to make in an otherwise psychosocial debate... the heck with it. So be it. But I find that I can't dismiss good qualities wholly in favor of the bad. HF --who politely acknowledges the power and validity of Elkins' argument, but who will nonetheless remain unconverted and persist in *liking* F&G. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From abigailnus at yahoo.com Mon Aug 26 08:58:41 2002 From: abigailnus at yahoo.com (abigailnus) Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 08:58:41 -0000 Subject: Fred and George: The Bullies You Do Know In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43164 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "ssk7882" wrote: > I pointed out that while the Twins are indeed helpful to Harry, we > have yet to see them be in the least bit pleasant to any student > outside of House Gryffindor. Indeed, every single one of their > interactions with an "out-group" student that we have yet seen in > canon has been disdainful, mocking, unfriendly, or in some other way > aggressive. This holds true not only for their interactions with the > members of House Slytherin, but also for their interaction with > Cedric Diggory, of House Hufflepuff. This is behavior characteristic > of bullies, who tend (according to Eron and Enkind) to think in terms > of "us vs. them," and to deny outsiders the same considerations > that they afford to those within their own circle. Actually, we have seen one very important instance of the twins being kind to a younger, weaker student with no family and friends for no reason other than to be kind to him - Harry himself. As Catherine pointed out in message #43105 (and good for her too, as I don't think anyone else caught this) when the twins first meet Harry at King's Cross he is just this small kid with a trunk that he can't carry. He's not a Gryffindor. He's not their brother's friend. He's definitely not Harry-Potter-the-Boy-Who-Lived. And yet without being asked (or prompted by their mother) they carry his trunk on the train and stow it for him. the rest of the post including some very interesting stuff about the bully mentality which I (obviously) didn't know. I'm beginning to find the "are they or aren't they" part of this debate a bit tedious, especially since, Elkins' definitions notwithstanding, it seems that everyone has a different idea of what constitutes bullying, and this idea is very strongly coloured by personal experience. I'm far more interested in Dicentra's thoughts on real characters vs. Toon characters (which correspond with my own ideas on how seriously we should take the elements of canon involving F&G, except that, as usual, Dicentra expresses her ideas a hundred times better than I do). I remain convinced that *it just doesn't matter* whether F&G are bullies, because we were never meant to analyze their actions as deeply as we do. Abigail From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Mon Aug 26 10:57:36 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 10:57:36 -0000 Subject: MAGIC DISHWASHER (Was: Re: Wandless!Harry - A Fatal Flaw?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43165 I wrote: > > Do you really believe they will fight? Even with Harry Potter on > > their side? I am not one of the Fudge Is Evil defenders. To me, > > he's the perfect example of the typical WW wizard, and he's not > > willing to fight against Voldemort. Nor are many of the wizard and > > witches, which is why Dumbledore has that group of people he > > *knows* he can trust. Notice that, so far, the only people who > > don't call Voldemort "you know who" have happened to be part of the > > "old gang", and the only ones willing to fight him. Greg answered: > I don't think that's true. Based on Chapter one of PS, Professor > McGonagall only refers to him as "You-Know-Who". Number one, I > doubt Dumbledore would have a deputy that he didn't think he could > count on in the fight against Voldemort. Plus, her actions at the > end of book 4 imply to me someone who's used to being in a war. Not > only does she help Dumbledore stun Crouch, but when he gives her > some rather odd orders, she doesn't stop to question, but > immediately runs to carry them out. I see her as sitting along side > Dumbledore in all of his meetings to try & find a way to kill > Voldemort, regardless of whether or not she can say his name. You've twisted my words around to make them say something I did certainly *NOT* say. Take a look at the original post: the only people who don't call Voldemort "you know who" have happened to be part of the "old gang" It does *not* say that all the members of the old gang call Voldemort by his name, only that the people who call him Voldemort are *part* of the old gang. Your argument is not valid, and I find offensive that people distort my words. The objection would be valid if you found someone who calls Voldemort by name and was *not* part of the old group. > So I don't see Fudge as prototypical of the WW. The person that I > see more as a representative of the whole, even though he's not a > proper wizard, is Hagrid. "Long as we've got Dumbledore we'll be > ok." But Dumbledore is either going to die or be incapacitated > before the end of book 7. And at that point, when Harry Potter, the > Boy-Who-Lived goes to him and says "I need your help to finish the > war", he's going to continue to fight. I don't think Hagrid is a good example of the typical wizard of the WW. He's fanatically loyal to Dumbledore, and would follow him anyplace, but I doubt this is the case with other wizards. As I said, I find Fudge more the archetypical wizard than Hagrid. For example, most people think that Voldemort is dead, but Hagrid doesn't think so. It may look like a little difference, but it's extremelly important in this case: most people are deluding themselves into thinking that Voldemort is dead and that he cannot come back, and that is because they prefer to pretend that Voldemort is destroyed than face the fear of his return. Those sort of people -people like Fudge- won't fight against Voldemort until it's too late, and maybe they won't fight at all. Then again, what we've seen so far of the WW makes me think that most of the people during Voldemort's Terror Campaign were cowering in their houses, fearing Voldemort and not doing anything at all about it, mainly because they didn't know where Voldemort would strike next. And that is the danger of an information war: Voldemort had the upper hand because he was difficult to find and to know where he would strike. Anyone who dared oppose him could suddenly find himself without family, when he came back from a hard day persecuting DEs to find the Deathmark over his house. Remember that the Neville crisis didn't shock the WW because of what had happened: it only shocked them because it happened *after* Voldemort fell. Those sort of torture events must have been pretty common, and most people wouldn't want to cross him for fear of their families. I also said: > > But he *can* rule the WW with both Dumbledore and Harry still > > alive. Let's take this to the limit: Voldemort kills everyone that > > oposes him except H&D: He gets to rule the WW, even if they still > > exist. Greg answered: > I guess this is true...but if it was just Voldemort & 2 other people > it wouldn't be much of a world to rule. And Richelle wrote: > But how can Voldemort kill *everyone* except Harry and Dumbledore? > Even in Voldemort's first reign he feared Dumbledore. As long as > Dumbledore's around and Voldemort fears him he will hestitate to go > openly to wherever Dumbledore is. Which as long as Dumbledore is at > Hogwart's it is a sort of safe haven. And as long as there are still > a large number at Hogwarts, Voldemort can't rule the entire WW. I did not say that he had to kill *everyone*, Greg and Richelle, only everyone that opposes him. This doesn't mean every soul in the WW. For starters, all the DEs and the people who think like Malfoy does don't oppose Voldemort, but, what is worse, many people wouldn't oppose him out of fear, and would let him rule because for some people is easier to capitulate than to suffer. Voldemort would only have to kill those who are actively against him: the old gang, and a few aurors. That's not that many people, and Voldemort is powerful enough for that. Without those people, Dumbledore and Harry don't have a chance. And, Richelle, are you sure that Hogwarts is a safe Haven? Voldemort has managed to enter it twice already, through the use of agents. For all we know, half a dozen of the teachers are in Voldemort's payroll. He's good at the spy game, and Dumbledore has proven unable to discover double agents between his ranks. What other surprises are in store for us in Hogwarts? Besides, there aren't that many Hogwarts in the WW. Name a second one, in fact, since I can't think of any place as safe as Hogwarts of all we have seen so far. Voldemort fears Dumbledore, of course, but he has already been able to work around him, and I'd imagine that he'll continue to do so. Back to my old post: > > Truth is, Dumbledore is not in a position of political authority, > > and he has never wanted to be. It's comendable, and a strong > > defensive position, but it means that Voldemort can take over the > > MoM, put someone he trust at the top, and reduce Dumbledore's side > > to a resistance movement. And if that happens, Voldemort will have > > won the war, because no war can *ever* be won from a hit-and-run > > position. Greg again: > I'm not saying that Voldemort won't ever run the MoM, but I think so > long as people, for the most part, look to Dumbledore for guidance > that Voldemort can't be completely in charge of the WW, MoM or no. Voldemort's plans are, broadly, becoming immortal and ruling the WW. Both can be reached even with the interference of Dumbledore and Harry. Once Voldemort's in power, too, Dumbledore will have almost lost the war since, as I've said, he'll continue to be a thorn in Voldemort's side, but his opportunities to win the war will have been reduced to almost zero. I don't see what is your objection to this, Greg, or how it relates to MAGIC DISHWASHER. Me again: > > But he *did* beat him. By all acounts, at the time of his sudden > > downfall, Voldemort had managed to almost take over the WW. Greg: > Yes, but almost counts only in horseshoes & hand gernades, not > war. ;) In a war "almost" does count. You can be in a loosing position, or in a winning position, and even though things *can* change, moral of the soldiers is very important, and soldiers aren't going to be willing to fight if they smell defeat in the air. I believe that if Voldemort hadn't been blasted away by Harry's protection, he would have been able to take over the WW in less than five years. That is "almost" a victory and the WW people know that, and fear him because of it. Me, a last time: > > And finally, I repeat the basic of Voldemort's reasoning to let > > Harry leave: While it is true that he probably needs to kill the > > boy, he has still got three years more before Harry finishes his > > training (and from Voldemort's PoV, probably even a few years more. > > If I was Voldemort, I'd hardly expect Dumbledore to send Harry > > against me at the immediate end of his training). Greg, finally: > This is just the definition of bad military tactics. You said it > yourself, "He needs to kill the boy." If that graveyard scene had > happened w/ just about any other wizard, I would find it much more > likely that Voldemort would try a disinformation campaign. But > whatever reason existed 14 years ago for him to want to kill this > little brat still exists. If he's just lost his mother's > protection, I as Voldemort, make sure to kill him before Dumbledore > comes up w/ some other enchantment, like he's using at his > relative's house, to keep this kid safe permanently. > > Greg But Voldemort isn't sure that he *can* kill the boy, so he takes it into consideration for his plans. And the fact is that events prove him right: he is unable to kill the boy in the graveyard, but even if he *had* killed him, his plans would've still have included the posibility of escpaing. Voldemort cannot see the future. He plans, and prepares contingency plans. Which means, in this case, that he planned to resurrect and then, once resurrected he planned *trying* to kill the brat, but also feed him false information *just in case* Harry happened to scape again. And, Lo and Behold! that is exactly what happened: Harry *did* manage to escape, even though Voldemort first debilitated him and then tried to AK him. When objecting to MAGIC DISHWASHER, people tend to miss the main point of the idea: that there are *plans* behind what is happening to Harry. There was a plan behind the shack scene, engineered by Dumbledore, which almost went *very* wrong. And there was a plan behind the Graveyard Gathering which *included* Harry either *dead or escaped*. And we know that because Voldemort isn't stupid, and he *didn't* have to talk before Harry. So, since he did, he must have had something else in mind. Hope that helps, Grey Wolf From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Mon Aug 26 14:12:53 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 14:12:53 -0000 Subject: TBAY The Missing 24 hours, the untold story In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43166 Captian Cindy was standing on the deck of her boat, felling very proud of herself about her recent pirating attack on the newcomer to the Bay, Meg, and her boat, THE FIRST MEMORY FRIEND. "That should teach her" she muttered. "No-one brings a new boat into this bay, or they shall face my Big Bang Canon (tm). Molly, indeed! ummmpf" Behind her, a sudden flash or brilliance left on what just a few moments before was an empty deck a big, Grey Wolf. He didn't look particularly happy, but with wolves you can never know. This one was growling. A long, low growl. It was the audible equivalent of a shortening fuse. Cindy looked curiosly at the wolf, and noticed that a note was resting at her feet. She made no move to pick it up. "Really, Grey Wolf, that little notes were amusing at first, but if you want to tell me something, you'd better learn to speak," said Cindy, turning around without waiting for an answer. The Grey Wolf looked around for a few seconds, and dashed behind a pile of sail cloth resting on the deck. A rip was clearly audible and what loked like a human came out from behind the pile. It was clearly, in general shape, male, although he was dressed in what appeared to be a toga made out of canvas. He was big, but not in the sense of being fat. He was just built to a scale slightly larger than normal. He was also suffering from a case of superfluous hair that not all the razors in the world could erase. Also, teeth and fingernails were being worn long this season. You'd expect the whole thing to growl, but it spoke in a clear, although definetily low, human voice. "You know, Capt'n," he said in a chatting tone to an wide-eyed Cindy "that fashioning impromptu clothes out of anything to hand is a lesser-known werewolf skill?" "What... where... " Cindy, for once, seemed to be at a loss for words "Who are you? And what are you doing here?" "Surely, Capt'n, you recognize the old citizen of the cold North, Grey Wolf. Of course, I've got another name, for this shape, but I don't think you could really pronounce it, so I'm not going to tell you." Said the Grey Wolf, "And I'm here because I saw what you tried to do to my friend Meg" The Grey Wolf got closer, and started to loom. Cindy found herself craning her head upwards to look at his face, and took a step back "You really thought something could escape the watchfull eyes of the Safe House? Didn't your last visit to Pip's and mine humble house teach you nothing? Look: here I've got the tape of your conversation. Personal holografic technology, too" A small, portable reproductor was in Grey Wolf's overgrown hand, and he carefully pressed the play button. Two small, translucents Cindy and Meg appeared. Cindy's voice came out of the machine. > "It's just ? well, you ? you failed to perform a *Bang* assessment, > sailor!" the Captain chuckled, clapping Meg on the back. "Don't > take it personally ? it could happen to anyone. But you can't just > trot out a new theory ? no matter how good it is ? without a proper > Bang assessment. We have *standards* around here, you understand > that, don't you?" "Standards?" said Grey Wolf "Coming from someone who terrorizes newcomers for sport? You're lucky that in this shape I don't eat human meat, Cindy, or I'd be tempted to nick you. Besides, isn't the fact that Ron and Harry connected so well from the begining Bangy enough? They almost seemed to be destined to like each other, and we now know why! They're what in my country we call 'milk brothers', and legend tells us that that always creates a big bond between two people" The reproduction, momentarily stopped, was resumed > "Here, let me help you sort out your Banging," the Captain said > easily. "See, if Hagrid gave Harry to Mrs. Weasley, where's the > Bang there? What? She has Harry share a crib with Ron? They fight > over Ron's hand-me-down teething toys? She takes good care of Harry > and then ?- what? She doesn't do anything in 10 years to follow > up? Wouldn't she want to see if the boy is OK, perhaps? "What you don't understand," explains Grey Wolf "is that Dumbledore, the great MAGIC DISHWASHER mastermind, arranges that quick visit to have someplace safe for Harry for one day, while he prepares an even safer place by using ancient magic: the Dursley's. Molly probably wanted to know how was Harry coming along, but Dumbledore kept the information secret for danger of a leak-out. Protecting Harry is difficult enough without having his situation becoime general knowledge, thankyouverymuch." > "Not only that," the Captain went on, "but Mr. Weasley and Ron's > older brothers seem not to have any idea that Mrs. Weasley helped > save Harry's neck that fateful night. If Mrs. Weasley had > possession of Harry for an entire 24-hour period, wouldn't Mr. > Weasley and maybe Bill and Charlie have some memory that a child > turned up on their doorstep for a single day and then vanished? I > mean, what's the *point* of it all? Where is this new theory > *going?*" "Are you sure about that, Cindy? Wouldn't Mr. Weasley have an awful lot of work, the day after Voldemort takes a leave of absence? AND the day Sirius and Peter have the famous get-toghether? I'd say that all the MoM officials were up their ears in work during a whole week, trying to quiet down things. You should understand it better than anyone else, Cindy: Voldemort left with a Bang as big as you can get, and Peter followed suit," Gray Wolf patiently exposed "On the other hand, the children, I hear you say. Now, Capt'n, what do you think a twelve year old and someone who's at least 14 would be doing on the first of November? I'd say that they were sleeping late, after they went to bed very late after attending the Halloween party *at Hogwarts*, so they must have slept late *in Hogwarts*, don't you think?" Grey Wolf made a pause "Tsk, tsk, Cindy. I'm shocked at you. Shocked. A LOON shouldn't have forgotten that. And the theory does not need to go anyplace, except to explain why Harry dissapeared from the radar for a full day. It's the *first* mystery of the books, after all." The Grey Wolf fast-forwarded the tape > "That's right ? the Longbottoms! They're *perfect!* Don't you > *see?*" the Captain cried. "Frank Longbottom is this famous auror, > and his wife is ? well, we don't know, really, other than we know > they have a son Harry's age. Frank is in law enforcement and is > apparently pretty good at it, so Dumbledore would have every reason > to think Frank and his wife could keep Harry safe, especially with > Frank being authorized to use Unforgivable Curses. So Dumbledore > asked them to care for Harry while more permanent arrangements were > being made that night. "Every reason to trust them, Cindy? They weren't part of the old gang. And about the only Auror that Dumbledore trusts is Moody, who happens to *not* use the Unforgivables at every turn. I wouldn't leave a boy in charge of someone who might just start an AK duel while the boy's in the house." Exclaimed the Grey Wolf "And the best reason is exactly the reaon you've said: it could've leaked out, and put both the Longbottoms AND Harry in danger. Better give the boy to someone who's got the experience needed and is not as well known. The wife of a head of a minor MoM department would be great. Who happens to have a baby of the same age, and a new one, so she must have milk enough for all of them. And who has proven she can keep a secret, too. That paints a single person: Molly, one of the lesser known members of the old group. The tape was fast-forwarded once again, until Cindy was heard saying > "Oh, please. I don't do acronyms, remember?" The Captain glanced > side to side and leaned in closer to Meg. "But I heard there is a > fabulous acronym generator that they used to use over at LOLLIPOPS, > just sitting there gathering dust. If you polish it up a bit, it > ought to serve you very well indeed. I don't think you were around > way back then, but the last owner got some *very* good results with > it, all things considered." "You're going to get into big trouble if you even *hint* of re-stablishing MAGIC. The poor dear is turned off for a reason, you know." Grey Wolf added in a omnious voice" Besides, you wouldn't be able to find it. It has been... taken care of... let's say. Know that TAGWATCH, however, is a public service who welcomes every Acronym Petition." Grey Wolf pocketed the holo-proyector, and looked hard at Cindy "I hope the air is clear know. I let you know that Meg's boat is under my protection, and I will fight with claws and fangs to defend her. Have a nice day" Grey Wolf turned, as if to leave, but suddenly turned once more and said "Three more things, though, before I leave. One, Meg's eyes are not watery green, they are bright blue and she's damn proud of them. Two, there is no steering wheel on a Cal 20, it may be a racing boat but it's still run by a tiller. And three, watch out for the sharks" With that, he threw her a cigarette end. Cindy caught it, out of a reflex, before suddely realizing she had already seen that particular cigarette "Oh, no, not again!" she exclaimed, but it was too late. She was already feeling as though a hook just behind her navel had been suddenly jerked irresistably forwards. The travel was short one, and a splash was heard besides the ship. Grey Wolf absently grabbed a life-saver from the wall and walked to the railing. "There you go, Capt'n. After all, my motto is 'if you play with wolves, expect to be bitten'" Grey Wolf helpfully threw the life-saver near Cindy "Been a pleasure talking to you, Capt'n. See you around. Oh, and hope that helps," he sadi, pointing at the life-saver. And with that, the Grey Wolf apparated away. Grey Wolf, who has quoted Terry Pratchett for the descriptions of werewolves. ************************* For an explanation of the acronyms and theories in this post, visit Hypothetic Alley at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/files/Admin20Files/ hypotheticalley.htm and Inish Alley at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/database?method=reportRows& tbl=13 From nightngle at yahoo.com Mon Aug 26 14:37:50 2002 From: nightngle at yahoo.com (nightngle) Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 14:37:50 -0000 Subject: Fred and George: Bullies... well, yeah In-Reply-To: <3D6A35E1.26202.1F07606@localhost> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43167 I really appreciate everyone's thoughts on this issue. It's a real eye-opener, I think, to have the courage to look objectively at characters who are on the "good side", yet have characteristics that uncomfortably brush up against the bad. Fred and George cross the line a number of times, intentionally or not. The incident on the train was particularly disturbing to me - kicking and stepping on someone who is unconscious is an act of violence. Being insulted is never an excuse for violence. I'm happy to hear some zero-tolerance on bullying folks here, myself. The unsettling part of Fred and George's behaviour to me is the fact that JKR rarely leaves a detail unattended. The fact that the twins brush so closely on the line can't be an accident. One of the things that Dumbledore makes very clear is that some wizards on the good side started using methods that were every bit as bad and wrong as the DEs and Voldemort. I wonder if we'll be seeing characters that we know and love going over to the bad side, being tricked into doing things that while not intended to be bad, will have bad effects - in other words, they will do what seems easy and expedient, rather than doing what is right. It seems to me that the twins often do what is easy rather than what is right. I will hate to see them causing real harm or being used, but I worry that they may be headed for a hard fall. "nightngle" From karinberquist at yahoo.com Mon Aug 26 08:02:42 2002 From: karinberquist at yahoo.com (karinberquist) Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 08:02:42 -0000 Subject: Nott's kid Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43168 When Voldemort was calling out the Death Eaters by name, there was one called Nott. If you go back to book one, as the first years are being sorted, there's a kid called Nott among them... I don't think that's a coincidence! Who agrees? "karinberquist" From judyshapiro at earthlink.net Mon Aug 26 16:28:52 2002 From: judyshapiro at earthlink.net (Judy Shapiro) Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 12:28:52 -0400 Subject: Fawkes; Voldemort rules!? Message-ID: <01C24CFC.24003C60.judyshapiro@earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 43169 Phyllis said: > I think the fact that JKR tells us that "very few wizards have ever > succeeded in domesticating" the phoenix provides additional support > for my premise that Fawkes belonged to Godric Gryffindor when he was > alive. But then I wonder who owned Fawkes after Gryffindor died but > before Dumbledore obtained him (the Druidess Cliodna, perhaps? :) Good point about few wizards domesticating the phoenix, Phyllis! I believe that Fawkes belonged to Godric Gryffindor; too. I mentioned a while back that this would make a nice parallel between Fawkes and Slytherin's basilisk. The victory of Harry and Fawkes over Tom Riddle and the basilisk would then be foreshadowing of Harry's eventual victory over Voldemort. On the topic of whether Voldemort will rule the Wizarding World, Grey_Wolf said: > Truth is, Dumbledore is not in a position of political authority, and he has > never wanted to be. It's commendable, and a strong defensive position, > but it means that Voldemort can take over the MoM, put someone he trust > at the top, and reduce Dumbledore's side to a resistance movement. And > if that happens, Voldemort will have won the war, because no war can > *ever* be won from a hit-and-run position. I think Voldemort taking over the MoM and putting one of his people (probably Lucius) in charge is *exactly* what will happen. However, I don't think this means that Voldemort will win, not in the long run. It is definitely possible to win a war from a "hit-and-run" position. I suspect there are many examples of this happening, but the most dramatic one I can think of is the Chinese civil war between the Communists and Nationalists. The Nationalists were the recognized government, they controlled almost all of China, and boy, did they ever have the Communists on the run. The Communists fled from them all the way around the perimeter of China. It is estimated that over 90% of the Communists were killed on this retreat (the famous "Long March"), which extended almost four thousand miles. And, just to make things worse for the Communists, the Nationalists later got huge assistance from the US. But, the Communists won the war, and they still rule China 50+ years later. If the Communists can come back after Nationalist leader Chiang Kai-Shek wiped most of them out, Harry and Co. can beat Voldemort, even if Voldemort controls the MoM. -- Judy, who accidentally wrote "I don't think this means that Voldemort will sin" and is glad that she caught that mistake. Heck, Voldemort sins all the time! From lucky_kari at yahoo.ca Mon Aug 26 17:17:46 2002 From: lucky_kari at yahoo.ca (lucky_kari) Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 17:17:46 -0000 Subject: TBAY The Missing 24 hours, the untold story In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43170 SPLASH! Both Avery and Eileen jump. Avery makes a dash under the new memory charm table Eileen has set up on the Fourth Man Hovercraft. "Aves, it's only Cindy," says Eileen quickly. "HELP!" yells Cindy. "Pull me out. The sharks..." "Well, I don't know," says Eileen calmly, her smile twisted in perfect Rowling fashion. "You did leave me in the basement to be murdered by a DE. And you tried to drown Avery here. You even denied me the chance to discover if Cruciatus makes you stronger." "PULL ME OUT, YOU SYCOPHANT!" A change comes over Eileen's face. She sighs and stretches out a hand to the Big Bang Captain. "Towels, you are a life saver!" cries Cindy, reaching out for some white material on Eileen's table. Eileen snatches them back with JKResque shriek. "THOSE ARE LIVIAN TOGAS, CINDY! Five galleons a toga. Three for twelve galleons." "Oh, I see," said Cindy glumly. "How much are the Viking Hats?" "One for three sickles. Three for 7 sickles, four knuts. We hope to buy a new hot tub for the hovercraft. The last one was irretrievable after all that filth people tracked in here." "Avery's not allowed in the new hot tub either," says Cindy sternly. "Cindy, you really should re-examine your attitude towards poor Avery. Has it ever occured to you that you are exhibiting the traits of a bully in this regard? Just size yourself up in regards to Elkins' last post." "But Avery is a bloodthirsty Death Eater who murdered people and tortured the Longbottoms to insanity," protests Cindy. "He deserves what he gets." "Ah, the classic excuse of the bully," says Eileen, jumping out of the way of a paddle Cindy has picked up. "Shut up!" says Cindy. "If you like the shape of your nose. Can't see why you would, but.." "I like your theory, though," says Eileen reluctantly. "I had an idea you would," says Cindy, a gleam in her eyes. "It's got Longbottoms and BIG BANG, after all. You know I can't resist the combination. And I think..." "What?" "Avery, get us a bottle of brandy. We're going for blood!" Cindy shudders a second, then flashes a twisted smile and grabs a FEATHERBOA. "As I understand it, the theory stands thus so far. Harry spent the missing 24 hours with the Longbottoms because they could a) take care of him quite well, b) protect him while Dumbledore got the whole ancient magic thing ready. Mrs. Lestrange hears about it later and goes after Frank because he's obviously in the in with Dumbledore." "Correct." "Let me tweak it a little. Suppose Mrs. Lestrange didn't go after Frank because she wanted to find the location of Voldemort. Let's suppose she wanted to find out how to bring Voldemort back." "Well, the first is essential to carrying out the second," says Cindy. "Even if she was a little woozey after her time in Azkaban, she would have known that." "Ah, but Cindy, what if she thought (and maybe she was correct) that killing Harry Potter would bring Voldemort back. In that case, she went after Frank to discover how to kill Harry Potter. Can you imagine the whole guilt thing between Harry and Neville when that comes into the open? What if Neville was to blame Harry or Harry to blame himself? Meanwhile, Mrs. Lestrange has the secret to killing Harry, a secret she wrung from Frank who was obviously thick in the arrangement of the protections. Once she's sprung from Azkaban, she can tell Voldemort. On the other hand, if you like memory charms, Neville has the secret too, and it may work it reverse. How to finally kill Voldemort. What do you think?" "It's definitely BIG BANGY," says Cindy. "BTW, I need a new gunner. My last bleeding heart refused to sink a nice happy boat involving Molly Weasley nursing Harry." Eileen mutters something about Elkins' criteria for bullying. "I'll take a turn on the BIG BANG for a bit, though," says Eileen. "I still need to post about the BIG BANGY Wilkes scandal. Avery, you take care of the togas and Viking hats while I'm gone." As Cindy and Eileen paddle the old Fourth Man kayak towards the Big Bang destroyer, Cindy asks, "What sort of a salesman is Avery, for heaven's sake?" "He'll do well enough. He's planning a silent auction." Eileen From judyshapiro at earthlink.net Mon Aug 26 17:28:07 2002 From: judyshapiro at earthlink.net (Judy Shapiro) Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 13:28:07 -0400 Subject: Fat Dudley, and Obesity in Canon Message-ID: <01C24D04.6ACAAAB0.judyshapiro@earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 43171 Eric said, with emphasis: > _All Dudley had to do to avoid the trap was to stick to the diet that had been set for him._ Well, I am generally not one to defend Dudley (or Draco, for that matter.) But, I do have a lot of experience with diets, and I want to point out that sticking to a diet is not easy at all. It is torture for a famished person to refrain from eating when food is presented. In fact, real torturers have found that starving prisoners and then offering them food is an effective way force a confession. (There is a description of this in "The Gulag Archipelago.") It is very clear from GoF that the Dudley's diet is not enough to stave off hunger; as soon as Harry heard about Dudley's new diet, and the fact that the whole family would be on it, Harry sent an appeal for food to all his friends. GoF implies that Harry didn't think he could *survive* on Dudley's diet. Perhaps you are thinking "Harry might be hungry, but Dudley wouldn't be; he has all that fat to live off of." If only the human body worked that way!!! Mine certainly doesn't. When I diet, I am so hungry that I can't even work, let alone sleep, and my body has plenty of fat; it just doesn't seem to want to use it. In animal studies, rats with lesions to the ventromedial hypothalamus get massively obese, but when food is withdrawn, they die of starvation much *sooner* than normal rats. The lesioned rats can not access their fat as fuel (which appears to be one reason why they become so fat in the first place.) So, going without food isn't easy at all, and this may be *more* true for obese people than for normal weight people. I perceived Dudley as truly suffering on his diet, and didn't blame him at all for eating the food the twins gave him. Jenny said: > [Dudley] is as much a target of his parents' abuse as Harry > is, but obviously he is suffering in other ways. Here in the States > there have been cases where parents have been accused of and found > guilty of abuse because they have young children who are obese. > Wouldn't you say that is the case with Dudley? He doesn't have a > gland problem; his parents feed him constantly. They never say no. Yes, there has been at least one case in the US where a mother was convicted of abuse after her massively obese (700 pound plus) daughter died of heart failure. I thought this was a travesty of justice; in fact, I wrote to the woman who was convicted and told her how horribly unfair I thought it was. (She sent me a nice letter back.) There is absolutely nothing a parent can do that will make a normal child weigh 700 pounds. The girl who died must have had some physiological problem. Not only was our society unable to help the girl, we then punished her poor mother, who had lost her only child to a disease that no one could cure. So, no, I don't feel Dudley's weight tells us anything about whether the Dursleys are abusive. (They are certainly horrible parents in many other ways, though.) I'd say there is actually substantial evidence in the books *against* the claim that Dudley is fat because of what his parents feed him. Dudley continues to gain weight at school, where he is away from his parents. Although there are some points where the Dursleys restrict Harry's food, for the most part, Harry seems to eat the same food at the Dursleys' house as Dudley does, and Harry doesn't get fat on it. Neither does Petunia. Also, there are plenty of other kids in the books who are shown as getting lots of fattening foods without becoming fat -- delicate little Draco gets sweets from home almost every day, it seems. For that matter, *all* the kids at Hogwarts seem to have unlimited access to heavy, fattening food, and few of them are overweight. Ron is described as thin, even though he seems almost obsessed with candy. Dudley *could* have a gland problem. Vernon and his sister Marge are also described as being overweight, and the inference I have always made is that Dudley inherited the genes for obesity from his father. My theory is that Vernon, Marge, and Dudley are fat because there are genes for obesity on the Dursley side of the family; Petunia, Harry, and Lily are thin or normal weight because there are no genes for obesity on the Evans side of the family. (Or on the Potter side, either, in Harry's case.) As one of the many millions of obese people in the world, here is my take on how obesity is presented in the JKR books. For the most part, JKR seems to present obesity in a reasonable way. Some people are fat, some are thin. Some of the fat people are nice (Molly), some are rotten (Dudley, Vernon, Marge.) Some thin people are nice (Harry) some are rotten (the Malfoys.) A lot of kids are really into sweets (Ron, Dudley); some of them are fat (Dudley) but some are thin (Ron). Unfortunately, this reasonable approach is undermined by the heavy (er, no pun intended) emphasis on nasty, fat Dudley and what a glutton he is. JKR repeatedly draws attention to a connection between Dudley stuffing himself and being fat, while never at all mentioning Ron's fondness for sweets in connection with the fact that Ron is thin, or Draco's constant receipt of sweets in connection with the fact that Draco is delicate. So, on balance I think the books somewhat reinforce the idea that fat people are to blame for their obesity. Obese-and-not-exactly-proud-of-it-but-not-blaming-herself-either!Judy From gandharvika at hotmail.com Mon Aug 26 17:23:40 2002 From: gandharvika at hotmail.com (Gail Bohacek) Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 17:23:40 +0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Longbottom Serenade(FILK) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43172 Long Bottom Serenade (a FILK by Gail Bohacek to the tune _Longfellow Serenade_ by Neil Diamond) Longbottom serenade Fickle the hands of fate Frank was an auror, straight as an arrow He had a wife so fair And she gave birth to a baby boy He was their pride and joy His name was Neville Good ol' Neville Try, come on Neville, try Don't let Snape bully you I sing this song Just to encourage you I know you have what It takes inside of you The courage that you've got Will soon break through You have good friends nearby So don't be afraid As I sing for you my Longbottom serenade Longbottom serenade Fickle the hands of fate Death Eaters came with evil intentions Tortured Frank and his wife for info If Neville overheard we may never know Time will only show But they were crucio-ed Now they're at Mugo's Try, come on Neville try Don't let Snape bully you I sing this song Just to encourage you I know you have what It takes inside of you The courage that you've got Will soon break through You have good friends nearby So don't be afraid As I sing for you my Longbottom serenade -Gail B. _________________________________________________________________ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx From matthisattva at yahoo.com Mon Aug 26 17:43:44 2002 From: matthisattva at yahoo.com (matthisattva) Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 17:43:44 -0000 Subject: Fred and George: Bullies... well, yeah In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43173 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "nightngle" wrote: > I wonder if we'll be seeing characters that we know and love going > over to the bad side, being tricked into doing things that while ? > not intended to be bad, will have bad effects - in other words, > they will do what seems easy and expedient, rather than doing what > is right. It seems to me that the twins often do what is easy > rather than what is right. I will hate to see them causing real > harm or being used, but I worry that they may be headed for a hard > fall. Hello :) What I'm hoping to see is a "calming effect" in the twins. With the end of GoF, they seem to have the means to persure their dream at last. Often times, giving two kids who have nothing better to do than test out their nasty tricks on people (i.e. Dudley), giving them a focus can turn their energies on new things. As we discovered, the twons have spent a long, long time developing their Wheezes, but now they need to be a little more "real world" about things to actually sell them. Becoming business men instead of rascals may have a good effect on the two. -- Matthisattva enlightened, and all around nice guy From matthisattva at yahoo.com Mon Aug 26 17:48:16 2002 From: matthisattva at yahoo.com (matthisattva) Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 17:48:16 -0000 Subject: Nott's kid In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43174 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "karinberquist" wrote: > When Voldemort was calling out the Death Eaters by name, there was > one called Nott. If you go back to book one, as the first years are > being sorted, there's a kid called Nott among them... I don't think > that's a coincidence! Who agrees? Most likely. After all we have proof of Draco's pop, as well as Crabb and Goyle's fathers as well. There are probably many children who don't even know their parents are Deatheaters, but will return home with news that the Dark Lord has risen again. Their folks would have known because of the call of the Dark Mark, but now their child/children know, and what position will that put them in? -- Matthisattva enlightened, and all around nice guy From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Aug 26 18:24:20 2002 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 18:24:20 -0000 Subject: Fred and George: The Bullies You Do Know In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43175 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "ssk7882" wrote: quoting a clinical definition of bullying > -- is there a real or perceived power imbalance between the victim and the instigator(s), is the victim incapable of retaliating > effectively in kind, or is the victim unusually and specifically > vulnerable in the arena targetted by the behavior?<< and asserting: > I would say that their treatment of Percy definitely qualifies as > bullying. The Twins are *not* bullies, according to Elkins' definition, because the people they habitually pick on are not weaker or incapable of retaliation. In every case, when they harrass a weaker person, it's due to an error in perception on their part. The Twins aren't thinking of what they do to Ginny as harrassment . But they can't be too much blamed for this, IMO, since no one else is any better at grasping what's ailing Ginny, and in fact it's Percy who bullies her into taking the PepperUp potion which she doesn't need. The Twins choose Dudley as a target because in their eyes he's not weak. They're not thinking of him as a helpless Muggle, they're thinking of him as a "great, bullying git," a person of such superiority that he fearlessly abused the great Harry Potter , something which, in their world, no prudent person would dream of doing. Their error is pointed out to them. What about the teachers, Molly and Percy? Are they being bullied? No, because they have greater status than the twins and are perfectly capable of retaliation. Quirrell, though he's nervous and stuttering, is in a position of authority over the twins, and canon explicity states that they were punished for the snowball incident. Percy is older than the Twins and has authority over them as a Prefect, a Head Boy and an adult, successively. Most of their attacks on him are carried out by stealth, because they know perfectly well what would happen to them if they got caught. In fact we see Percy chasing them all over Gryffindor Tower when they steal his prefect's badge in Book One. Apparently he's not worried by their sheer physical superiority...a wand makes a good equalizer. Molly is the one who wears the pants (if wizards wore pants) in the Weasley family, and she's the parent who's plagued by identity switches and fake wands. We never see them tease Arthur, do we? The twins aren't bullies. What they are is *rebels.* They don't attack those whom they perceive as weak. They attack the strong, using guerilla tactics which will doubtless come in handy in the war ahead. Pippin From judyshapiro at earthlink.net Mon Aug 26 19:50:29 2002 From: judyshapiro at earthlink.net (Judy Shapiro) Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 15:50:29 -0400 Subject: MAGIC DISHWASHER and saying the name Message-ID: <01C24D18.4E779990.judyshapiro@earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 43176 Grey_Wolf said: >>> Notice that, so far, the only people who >>> don't call Voldemort "you know who" have happened to be part of the >>> "old gang", and the only ones willing to fight him. And Greg replied: >> Professor McGonagall only refers to him as "You-Know-Who"<< and went on to say that McGonagall seemed willing to fight Voldemort To which Grey Wolf responded: > You've twisted my words around to make them say something I did > certainly *NOT* say.... > It does *not* say that all the members of the old gang call Voldemort > by his name, only that the people who call him Voldemort are *part* of > the old gang. Your argument is not valid, and I find offensive that > people distort my words. The objection would be valid if you found > someone who calls Voldemort by name and was *not* part of the old > group. I think Greg's statement was just an innocent misreading of what you said, Grey Wolf, not an attempt to twist anyone's words. In fact, when I read your post I took it to mean the same think Greg seems to have thought -- that only those people brave enough to call Voldemort by his name would be brave enough to fight him. I, too, was considering arguing against this claim, because clearly there are people willing to oppose Voldemort who are not willing to say his name -- the Weasleys, for example. So, what does the "and the only ones willing to fight him" part of your quote mean, if it doesn't mean that those too scared to say "Voldemort" will also be too scared to fight? I don't get it. As for whether anyone outside the "old gang" calls Voldemort by his name, I think there may be people who do, but we just haven't seen them do it. In CoS, doesn't Tom Riddle imply that his friends were using the name "Voldemort" back when he was in school? Maybe they still are. At the end of CoS, Lucius is not described as flinching when Dumbledore tells him to stop distributing Voldemort's old school things. The use of Voldemort's name doesn't seem to bother Lucius at all. True, at the beginning of CoS, Lucius is talking to Draco and refers to "the Dark Lord", but I didn't take Dark Lord as a *euphemism* for Voldemort, I took it as an *honorific* for Voldemort. Heck, the DEs kiss his robes and let him touch their Dark Marks, how bad can saying his name be? Grey Wolf said: > And there was a plan behind the > Graveyard Gathering which *included* Harry either *dead or escaped*. > And we know that because Voldemort isn't stupid, and he *didn't* have > to talk before Harry. So, since he did, he must have had something else > in mind. Voldemort isn't stupid? I'm hoping that at the HPfGU conference, there will be a panel called "Voldemort: Diabolical Genius or Incompetent Fool?" I'd definitely be on the Incompetent Fool side. (Oops, no, wait, that came out wrong.) I don't think Voldemort is stupid, exactly, but he certainly *acts* stupidly sometimes. (Don't forget the phoenix tears!) He's the stereotypical Evil Overlord who can't think because all the blood is rushing to his ego. In general, I believe MAGIC DISHWASHER, or at least parts of it. I think Dumbeldore has a plan; he wanted Voldemort to use Harry in his attempt to regain human form, and I think the notorious "gleam" was because Dumbledore was glad Voldemort had used Harry's blood. But, I don't think Dumbledore anticipated Voldemort kidnapping Harry from the Tournament, and I think Voldemort wanted Harry *dead dead dead* in the Graveyard scene, not escaped. --Judy, who likes to think she'd call Voldemort "Moldie Voldie" behind his back, but would be scared witless to fight him From mikezitz at charter.net Mon Aug 26 18:11:48 2002 From: mikezitz at charter.net (interstate999) Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 18:11:48 -0000 Subject: Harry's tears, a new twist Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43177 Ok, I've been following the post on Harry needing to cry and recovery from his experiences with tears. JK Rowling has even said there is something magical about Harry's eyes. I think were close, but just a bit off on this predication. I hope no one has come up with this one yet. The heir to Slytherin was given a special treat or power that no other had Parselmouth. Now young Harry has that same power not because he is the heir to Slytherin, but because some of Voldermort's powers were transferred to him when he tried to kill him. That now brings us to the heir of Gryffindor. I think we can safely assume that Harry is the heir to Gryffindor. What special power would be passed down for Harry to use? I think this is it, Harry's eyes. The healing powers are not for Harry to mend his sole from crying. Healing powers, tears from his eyes, might be just what JK has in store for him. The ability to heal others with his tears the same as Fawkes can. Just think of this scene, or a similar one, Hermione dying as she saved Harry from Voldermort or Nigina, allowing Harry to finish off Voldermort with blind rage seeing Hermione fall to the ground. Then just watching Harry go to his knees, finally crying on Hermione. His soon finds out the unexpected twist, she is healed by his tears. Just a though. Ok, I'm against the wall, blast away. I hope this has not been covered by someone else. If it has, opps, sorry. Mike Zitzmann Hammond, LA. From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Mon Aug 26 20:40:33 2002 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (bboy_mn) Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 20:40:33 -0000 Subject: Fawkes; Voldemort rules!? In-Reply-To: <01C24CFC.24003C60.judyshapiro@earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43178 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Judy Shapiro wrote: > > Judy Quoting Grey Wolf: > On the topic of whether Voldemort will rule the Wizarding > World, Grey_Wolf said: > > Truth is, Dumbledore is not in a position of political > > authority, and he has never wanted to be. It's commendable, > > and a strong defensive position, but it means that Voldemort > > can take over the MoM, put someone he trust at the top, and > > reduce Dumbledore's side to a resistance movement. And > > if that happens, Voldemort will have won the war, because > > no war can *ever* be won from a hit-and-run position. Judy Replying to Grey Wolf: > > I think Voldemort taking over the MoM and putting one of his > people (probably Lucius) in charge is *exactly* what will happen. > However, I don't think this means that Voldemort will win, not > in the long run. It is definitely possible to win a war from > a "hit-and-run" position. I suspect there are many examples of > this happening, but the most dramatic one I can think of is the > Chinese civil war between the Communists and Nationalists. > > ...EDITED... > > If the Communists can come back after Nationalist leader Chiang > Kai-Shek wiped most of them out, Harry and Co. can beat Voldemort, > even if Voldemort controls the MoM. > > -- Judy, -- bboy_mn responds to all: Hit and Run War - how about this example; Vietnam. Vietnam had a relatively small regular army; it was their guerilla and guerilla tactics that really won the war. When I first read this line in Judy's response "... putting one of his people (probably Lucius) in charge is *exactly* what will happen.". I initially read it as Lucius in charge of HOGWARTS; now that is a scary thought. Of course, after a closer look, I realize you meant in charge of the MoM. But that brought me back to thoughts of Hogwarts, in your series of events where Lucius become Minister of Magic, do you see them (Big_V & Co.) ever taking over Hogwarts? I'm assuming in a sense that Hogwarts will be the center of the resistance movement, but I would think that would make a lot of people afraid to send their kids to Hogwarts. True, Hogwarts is probably a well protected place and a safe place for their kids, but how safe are the parents at home? By sending your kids, you are in a sense supporting Dumbledore against Voldemort. So while the kids are safe at school; how safe are their parents at home? Could there be reprisals against parents who appear to support Dumbledore by allowing their kids to go to school? Just some thoughts. bboy_mn From bdmorrp at budget.state.ny.us Mon Aug 26 21:07:01 2002 From: bdmorrp at budget.state.ny.us (erisedstraeh2002) Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 21:07:01 -0000 Subject: Omniscient Echoes and Escape Plan (WAS: Thoughts on MAGIC DISHWASHER ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43179 In a previous post, I (Phyllis/erisedstraeh2002) wrote: > My theory is that James' ghostly self (in the corrected version of > GoF) rigged the Cup to return to Hogwarts so that Harry could > escape. Otherwise, how would James' ghost have known to tell > Harry "you must get to the portkey, it will return you to > Hogwarts..." (GoF, US hardback ed., p. 667)? And Grey Wolf responded: > Crouch!Moody wasn't able to change the destination of the > Cup, which *was* a portkey designed by Dumbledore to take you to > the entrance of the maze (after all, the last thing you want after > winning the Triwizard Tournament is to backtrace your steps through > a maze filled with dangers). Crouch!Moody only put in an extra > stop. Now me again: I agree that it's far-fetched to think that James' "reverse echo" would have rigged the Cup to return to Hogwarts. The idea makes much more sense. Perhaps the dead in the wizarding world have some sort of omniscient powers. This would explain how the "reverse echo" of James knew to tell Harry that the portkey would return him to Hogwarts and how Bertha Jorkins' "echo" knew to call Harry "Harry" when we've never heard of an instance where Harry has previously met her. IIRC, in an interview JKR indicated that in future books we will find out more about ghosts in the wizarding world, so perhaps she'll actually give us an answer to this by the end of Book 7. Grey Wolf again (in response to my saying that if Voldemort were actually planning to allow Harry to escape, Fake!Moody wouldn't have tried to kill Harry before Harry could relate Voldemort's presumed misinformation to Dumbledore): > You are supposing that Crouch knew Voldemort's plans. I don't think > Voldemort would tell Crouch anything that he didn't need to know. Me again: But isn't one of the basic tenets of MAGIC DISHWASHER that Voldemort is a careful planner? So if Voldemort was planning to let Harry escape, he would have *had* to put a plan in place for when Harry returned to Hogwarts (IMO, Harry wouldn't escape back to the dreaded Dursleys, he would escape back to Hogwarts). So I would think that Fake!Moody would *have* to know of Voldemort's plan to let Harry escape so he could feed misinformation to Dumbledore, since Fake! Moody is Voldemort's only servant at Hogwarts (that we know of, that is!). This actually would answer a question I've been pondering, which is - why didn't Fake!Moody portkey himself to the graveyard when he felt the Dark Mark burn on his arm? If the answer is that Voldemort needed him to remain at Hogwarts in case he wasn't able to kill Harry and Harry escaped back to Hogwarts, it would make sense that Fake! Moody would have needed to stay at Hogwarts rather than join his fellow DEs at Voldemort's self-titled "rebirthing party." So I agree that Voldemort had a back-up plan in case Harry escaped (Fake!Moody was instructed to kill Harry upon his return to Hogwarts), but I don't agree that Voldemort intended for Harry to escape so he could feed misinformation to Dumbledore (since Fake!Moody tried to kill Harry before the "misinformation" could be relayed). I'm curious as to why the information Voldemort provides is considered misleading or false. All of it rings true to me - the fact that he's named after his father; the fact that he killed his father; that he calls the dementors and giants his "natural allies." ~Phyllis who wishes she had a house-elf to help with the laundry, so she wouldn't have to spend all weekend doing it (I would pay wages and provide paid vacations, Hermione, honest I would!) From Malady579 at hotmail.com Mon Aug 26 22:31:45 2002 From: Malady579 at hotmail.com (malady579) Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 22:31:45 -0000 Subject: Hermione's placement Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43180 Ok, now I know we do not want to question the all mighty sorting hat, but.... Why was Hermione placed in Gryffindor instead of Ravenclaw? Why was the cleverest student in Hogwarts not placed in the cleverest house? I can only assume that her courage is the only thing that out matches her mind, but I was wondering if anyone else has wondered the same. The only other excuse I can think of is that: JKR has always said that she wrote Hermione like herself, and that if JKR was to be sorted, she would want to be in Gryffindor. So therefore, if A=B, B=C, then A=C, then Hermione is in Gryffindor. Those are the only reasons I can come up with really. Any other suggestions are greatly welcomed by all. Ok, that is all. Have a good day. :) Melody From alina at distantplace.net Mon Aug 26 22:47:20 2002 From: alina at distantplace.net (Alina) Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 18:47:20 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Hermione's placement References: Message-ID: <004301c24d52$8a0a8f00$4a112b18@shprd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com> No: HPFGUIDX 43181 ----- Original Message ----- From: "malady579" > Ok, now I know we do not want to question the all mighty sorting hat, > but.... > > Why was Hermione placed in Gryffindor instead of Ravenclaw? > > Why was the cleverest student in Hogwarts not placed in the cleverest > house? I thought about it before and this is the reason I have. I think it came up on the list and even in the books that the hat doesn't only look at people's attributes but also at their choices. Harry *chose* not to be in Slytherin. Hermione in the end of PS/SS told Harry that "bravery and courage" are more important than "books and cleverness". She values the Gryffindor attributes more than she values the Ravenclaw ones. I believe that's the reason she's in Gryffindor. Alina of Distant Place http://www.distantplace.net/ --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.381 / Virus Database: 214 - Release Date: 02/08/2002 From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Mon Aug 26 23:33:39 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 23:33:39 -0000 Subject: MAGIC DISHWASHER: saying the name/escape plans In-Reply-To: <01C24D18.4E779990.judyshapiro@earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43182 Judy Shapiro wrote: > In general, I believe MAGIC DISHWASHER, or at least parts of it. I > think Dumbeldore has a plan; he wanted Voldemort to use Harry in his > attempt to regain human form, and I think the notorious "gleam" was > because Dumbledore was glad Voldemort had used Harry's blood. But, I > don't think Dumbledore anticipated Voldemort kidnapping Harry from > the Tournament, and I think Voldemort wanted Harry *dead dead dead* > in the Graveyard scene, not escaped. > > --Judy Don't really have much to say about Judy's points, except that you've got some of the ideas wrong. MAGIC DISHWASHER doesn't say that Dumbledor anticipated the Graveyard scene. In fact, it says the exact oposite: that Dumbledore *did not* see the Portkey!Cup twist. He's not *that cruel*, and it goes against his modus operandi: when Harry is about to face the "big enemy" (any of them), Dumbledore always has back-up ready for him: Dumbledore himself in PS, arriving in the nick of time. Fawkes and the hat in CoS. Snape in Shack Scene, PoA. However, Harry only has Cedric "Spare" Digory in the Graveyard Gathering, which strikes me as even *less* competent than having Lockhart (OK, maybe not *that* incompetent, but still...). Of course, if you believe in Stupid!Voldemort, there is not much I can do to convince you otherwise, except by insisting that you check the original theory (post 40044, for Voldemort the intelligent evil oiverlord part). You haven't given me a real reason, and I know that feeling. You trust your guts (as do I for most of the theories), and there is not really much I can do to change your view point except what I've already said. But rational arguments cannot change a gut feeling, I know (been there, done that). Phyllis wrote: > Perhaps the dead in the wizarding world > have some sort of omniscient powers. This would explain how > the "reverse echo" of James knew to tell Harry that the portkey would > return him to Hogwarts and how Bertha Jorkins' "echo" knew to call > Harry "Harry" when we've never heard of an instance where Harry has > previously met her. IIRC, in an interview JKR indicated that in > future books we will find out more about ghosts in the wizarding > world, so perhaps she'll actually give us an answer to this by the > end of Book 7. I want to point out that the general consensus in the list, IIRC, is that those weren't real ghost, just shadows (that is, they weren't ghosts like Binns or Nick), so there is no reason to imagine that JKR will go into details about their powers. This theory is based in Dumbledore's words in GoF. Harry says that he saw Cedric's ghost, and Dumbledore corrects him and says "An echo that kept Cedric's aspect and personality". Yahoomort's search feature has proven to be worthless, and I haven't found the last itme that came up. It was quite some time ago, anyway, so if you disagree, maybe it's time we brought it up again. > Phyllis again: > > But isn't one of the basic tenets of MAGIC DISHWASHER that Voldemort > is a careful planner? So if Voldemort was planning to let Harry > escape, he would have *had* to put a plan in place for when Harry > returned to Hogwarts (IMO, Harry wouldn't escape back to the dreaded > Dursleys, he would escape back to Hogwarts). So I would think that > Fake!Moody would *have* to know of Voldemort's plan to let Harry > escape so he could feed misinformation to Dumbledore, since Fake! > Moody is Voldemort's only servant at Hogwarts (that we know of, that > is!). > > This actually would answer a question I've been pondering, which is - > why didn't Fake!Moody portkey himself to the graveyard when he felt > the Dark Mark burn on his arm? If the answer is that Voldemort > needed him to remain at Hogwarts in case he wasn't able to kill Harry > and Harry escaped back to Hogwarts, it would make sense that Fake! > Moody would have needed to stay at Hogwarts rather than join his > fellow DEs at Voldemort's self-titled "rebirthing party." So I agree > that Voldemort had a back-up plan in case Harry escaped (Fake!Moody > was instructed to kill Harry upon his return to Hogwarts), but I > don't agree that Voldemort intended for Harry to escape so he could > feed misinformation to Dumbledore (since Fake!Moody tried to kill > Harry before the "misinformation" could be relayed). We agree that Voldemort is a careful planner all right, Phyllis, but I'm not that sure that he's all that willing to give his DEs more information that they strictly need. Besides, I didn't think that Crouch had been ordered to kill Harry if he returned: Crouch at that time is totally out of control (a good clue is how he gets careless, first by forgetting to take his potion, then by forgeting to check the mirror). I wasn't saying that, if he had killed him, Voldemort wouldn't have been happy about it, only that it wasn't considered in his original plans. However, with that particular knack you've got, Phyllis, to opose a theory at the same time you add to it, I've rethinked my position. Maybe Crouch's actions at the end of GoF *were* part of Voldemort's plan: if Harry managed to escape one more, Crouch should take a try at killing him. After all, all Voldemort looses is a spy that, although it has proven to be very useful, cannot stay another year (Moddy would only be DADA teacher for one year), so Voldemort changes a bishop for a queen, and maybe even manages to take a few more in his wake although make no mistake, Crouch's oportunities of getting out of Hogwarts alive and free after killing Harry would be infinitesimal). I don't think Voldemort told Crouch that he didn't expect him to leave alive, though. The problem with that possibility is that Crouch was acting out of control at the end of GoF. I've always felt that Crouch was trying to impress Voldemort by doing something not even he had managed, which is why I think I'm going to stick to "Crocuh was improvising for all his worth" option. Both are compatible with MAGIC DISHWASHER so far, though, so take your pick. I'd modify a bit your version, though. No matter what sort of Voldemort you believe in, he's not the sort to think that what he cannot do, a servant can, so if his plans include Harry escaping to fall in Crouch's clutches, they must include Harry escaping Crouch too. Which takes us back to "at least he'll give Dumbledore false information" thread. Phyllis one last time: > I'm curious as to why the information Voldemort provides is > considered misleading or false. All of it rings true to me - the > fact that he's named after his father; the fact that he killed his > father; that he calls the dementors and giants his "natural allies." > > ~Phyllis I must admit that I'm not the expert on that. For the possible misinformation, check Pip's post 40044. She gives there a few examples of misinformation feed to Harry from MAGIC DISHWASHER's point of view. (the last points of the post, check the index if you don't want to read through it again). I've just read through them and Pip's explanation makes sense, and no-one so far has poked holes in that part of MAGIC DISHWASHER, so there is no patch information I can give you. Hope that helps, Grey Wolf, who would really want Phyllis to join MAGIC DISHWASHER, since it's very difficult to argue with someone who adds so many great ideas while trying to fight the theory itself. From pdo at uwm.edu Tue Aug 27 00:01:32 2002 From: pdo at uwm.edu (pollypocket53132) Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 00:01:32 -0000 Subject: HP Symposium Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43183 Hello, Could someone please tell me about the Harry Potter Symposium taking place next year? What is it and how do you enter it? I got the link from the Leaky Cauldron, and the idea sounds quite intriguing! Hugz n' Harry Polly From ephantom1 at yahoo.com Mon Aug 26 22:44:46 2002 From: ephantom1 at yahoo.com (ephantom1) Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 22:44:46 -0000 Subject: September 1st weather. Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43184 I have noticed something interesting in the four books. As you go from one book to the next, the weather of September 1st, more specifically, the weather when they arrive at Hogwarts gets progressively worse. In SS/PS it's fine from what I recall, in CoS it is very cloudy, in PoA it's raining rather strongly, and in GoF there is a full on storm. Dunno what conclusions can be drawn from this, but it is a rather interesting pattern. EP From beech000 at uwp.edu Mon Aug 26 23:59:49 2002 From: beech000 at uwp.edu (Amatia) Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 23:59:49 -0000 Subject: Voldemort's (first) Reign of Terror - what about the Muggles? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43185 I've been pondering this quite a bit lately - we know the entire WW feared Voldemort so much during the period when he killed the Potters that they can't speak his name ten, twelve years later, but what about the Muggle world? Did they know he existed (like with Sirius Black being announced on Muggle television as a dangerous criminal) or did the MoM & Prime Minister work a cover story? A friend of mine put forth the following idea on a cover story: Voldemort's first RoT took place during a time (late 1970's) when there were several attacks by the IRA in in England and Northern Ireland. Not saying that the IRA got blamed for everything Voldemort did during this perioud, but rather that the most "visible" Death Eater attacks could have been explained by the British Government as IRA attacks. Easier to explain mass murder to non-magic folk as (muggle) terrorism than as the work of a crazy Wizard and his followers, right? One of my issues with the books (not that I don't love them to death) is that there's very little info about the first time Voldemort was active. We get the death of the Potters and Pettigrew vs. Black explained, but not much else. We don't hear about the Durselys being afraid of this "insane criminal" who's on the loose, and they certainly make enough noise about Sirius to make you think that if they'd ever known about Voldemort something would have been said. Certainly the news program about the odd number of owls would have been preempted by "blah blah criminal, killer caught/killed". I know there's been quite a bit of discussion here recently about Voldemort and his "greatness" and what that "greatness" might have been - but aside from the pureblood superiority propaganda he put forth and the alliances resulting from that (the Death Eaters [which yields my #1 HP Universe Question: What did the DE's _do_ besides kill/torture?]) - what else were his goals? Plain old power, a dictatorship? Over the WW or over everyone? I really wish we knew more about Voldemort's politics and views _before_ he got vaporized and turned all hell-bent on terrorising Harry. (Seeing as I can't say "killing Harry" because he's had a bunch of chances and hasn't managed to do it yet.) Sorry if this has been discussed before, I wasn't able to really find much regarding Muggle knowledge of Voldemort in the archive. - Molly, always nervous that there's been prior discussion but that I just can't find it! From rvotaw at i-55.com Tue Aug 27 00:14:42 2002 From: rvotaw at i-55.com (Richelle Votaw) Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 19:14:42 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Death Eaters and their chidlren (was Nott's kid) References: Message-ID: <018701c24d5e$beb6a2a0$1b9dcdd1@istu757> No: HPFGUIDX 43186 "karinberquist" writes: > When Voldemort was calling out the Death Eaters by name, there was > one called Nott. If you go back to book one, as the first years are > being sorted, there's a kid called Nott among them... I don't think > that's a coincidence! Who agrees? Hmm, I never noticed. You raise an interesting point. I shall elaborate. (yeah, everybody look out, I'm elaborating!) Known death eaters: Avery (first name or last name? Referred to Voldemort as Avery. Only Lucius was referred to by first name, that we know for certain, but Avery can be a first or last name). Lucius Malfoy The LeStranges (probably the thin man and dark haired woman in the pensieve--in Azkaban) Macnair Crabbe Goyle Nott Antonin Dolohov--Azkaban Evan Rosier--killed in a struggle Travers--Azkaban Mulciber--Azkaban Augustus Rockwood--Azkaban?? Ludovic Bagman (was he really a DE? I'm a bit confused on him) Barty Crouch Jr.--now as good as dead Severus Snape--spy for Dumbledore Igor Karkaroff--fled unamed man on trial with others for torture of Longbottoms--Azkaban Children who are or may be children of DE's: Draco Malfoy Vincent Crabbe Gregory Goyle ? Nott Now, interesting thing here is that they're all the same age. Does this mean that those four sort of did everything Lucius did? Or is this a Voldemort "Go reproduce" order. I know that's discussed before, but I'm hypothesizing here. We know there are two other European schools of witchcraft and wizardry around that may have Voldemort connections. One of course does, Durmstang, with Karkaroff as headmaster. Beauxbatons is French, right? LeStrange is a French name, isn't it? French connection there? So there may be other children the same age there. We only met older ones, due to the age limit of the Triwizard championship. Suppose *all* the DE's had babies the same year--being the same year Harry was born, which is interesting. Does Snape have a child somewhere? Hmm. Can't see that. But anyway, what would it *mean*? And why isn't Nott in Slytherin? Or if he is, why doesn't he run with Malfoy and co.? Richelle From alina at distantplace.net Tue Aug 27 00:25:23 2002 From: alina at distantplace.net (Alina) Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 20:25:23 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] September 1st weather. References: Message-ID: <008a01c24d60$3ca76e00$4a112b18@shprd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com> No: HPFGUIDX 43187 ----- Original Message ----- From: "ephantom1" > I have noticed something interesting in the four books. As you go > from one book to the next, the weather of September 1st, more > specifically, the weather when they arrive at Hogwarts gets > progressively worse. In SS/PS it's fine from what I recall, in CoS it > is very cloudy, in PoA it's raining rather strongly, and in GoF there > is a full on storm. Dunno what conclusions can be drawn from this, > but it is a rather interesting pattern. I'm pretty sure the conclusion is the Scotland (which is approximately where Hogwarts is, right?) Has rainy weather in early Autumn. Alina. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.381 / Virus Database: 214 - Release Date: 02/08/2002 From DaveH47 at mindspring.com Tue Aug 27 01:01:26 2002 From: DaveH47 at mindspring.com (Dave Hardenbrook) Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 18:01:26 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: MAGIC DISHWASHER: saying the name/escape plans In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7010414367.20020826180126@mindspring.com> No: HPFGUIDX 43188 Monday, August 26, 2002, 4:33:39 PM, grey_wolf_c wrote: g> The problem with that possibility is that Crouch was acting out of g> control at the end of GoF. I've always felt that Crouch was trying to g> impress Voldemort by doing something not even he had managed, which is g> why I think I'm going to stick to "Crocuh was improvising for all his g> worth" option. Personally, I kind of like the idea that he finally went off the deep end... (Maybe years under the Imperius Curse will do that, even after you're released?) It would explain his carelessness with the potion, the Foe Glass, leading Harry away out of character, risking casting stuns and Unforgivable Curses with all of Hogwarts and then some watching, and his wild attempt to kill Harry. Boy, maybe if he had survived he would have shown up at the next Death Eater meeting in a Gingham Dress and a penguin puppet called Mr. Flibble! :) Monday, August 26, 2002, 12:50:29 PM, Judy Shapiro wrote: JS> I think Voldemort wanted Harry *dead dead dead* in the Graveyard JS> scene, not escaped. Of course Voldemort wanted him "dead dead dead", just like I'd like to a have a million dollars and be able to hop on a broom and play Quidditch for England. But we have to all prepare for the possibility that we can't have what we want, and make the best of it. The next best thing to dead Harry is misinformed Harry, from V's POV. -- Dave From nplyon at yahoo.com Tue Aug 27 01:02:21 2002 From: nplyon at yahoo.com (Nicole L.) Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 18:02:21 -0700 (PDT) Subject: In Defense of Fred and George (Was re: Fred and George: The Bullies You Do Know) In-Reply-To: <1030383177.1825.14970.m1@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <20020827010221.75201.qmail@web20901.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 43189 Eileen said: > But, in regards to all the chilling evidence about > Fred and George, > they do seem to be Dumbledore's pets. Cindy noted > that they get away > with much more than Draco. I would like to point out > that they are the > only students Dumbledore publically favours. > Dumbledore has long chats > with Harry in private, but he'll interrupt his > public speeches to talk > to Fred and George, stare pointedly in their > direction during the same > etc. Let me start by saying that I respect that not everyone will have an opinion that matches mine. However, I really think that the twins are being very much maligned. They are thoughtless at times but I do not think they are mean. They are simply misguided from time to time, unlike Draco and Snape, who are both mean just for the sake of being mean. As for Fred and George being Dumbledore's pets, I beg to differ with that. Perhaps Dumbledore does find their antics amusing (much as he find the antics of the Trio and, in the past, the Maruaders as amusing). Teachers are humans too and there are times when they will think things are funny, even when they know that the student should not have been doing them. As other listees have pointed out, Fred and George have lost many, many points for Gryffindor. I don't have the cannon in front of me, but I believe it is also stated that they have spent a great deal of time in Filch's office and that they have had multiple detentions. So, even if Dumbledore is amused by them, they are still being punished for breaking the rules. If they were truly Dumbledore's pets, he would let their bad behavior slide by without any consequences. > > Or what if it had been a humourless obsession for > Quidditch? If you > want an illustration of the maliciousness in the > twins' attitude > towards Percy, you should look at the twins' > attitude towards Oliver > Wood. Wood, it is made clear throughout the books, > is humourless > (though funny for us to read), quite arrogant in > regards to the > importance of his pursuit in relation to peoples' > lives, and completely obsessed to the point of > boring people. But, > Fred and George, you see, are interested in > Quidditch. Their approach > to Wood's peculiarities is really funny, > light-hearted, and friendly. > They gently dig at Wood's foibles. A good example > would be their > recital of Oliver Wood's tense opening speech in > Harry's first game. > Oliver retorts by telling them to "Shut up!" I think the major difference here is that there is no sibling rivalry going on between the twins and Wood. What's more, Wood acknowledges that they are good players and he values having them on the team. Now, I don't think Percy's a horrible person but he does have a very superior attitude towards his brothers. I can hardly blame them for being irked with him. If my sibling was constantly making a point of how very "important" he was, my patience with him would run out just as Fred and George's has. Percy grows more and more pompous as the series progresses and, as a result, Fred and George grow more and more annoyed with him. I fail to see how this make Fred and George horrible people. > > Now, I find it quite telling that in the > Potterverse, "Shut up!" seems > to be a gentle inoffensive almost endearing form of > adress among boys. > (And in my family as well, I must say.) Our first > Percy/twins exchange > reminds me of this. Fred and George make fun of > Percy's pride at being > a prefect, and Percy tells them to shut up. I > wouldn't say there was > much resentment between them > at that point. Later in the book, there is the > heartwarming sweater > scene, where it's obvious that Percy has dropped in > because he wants > to be with the rest of the family, and that Fred and > George really > treasure their older brother. And what does Percy want to do? He wants to sit with the prefects. Fred and George have to order him to sit with his family. So who is that's not valuing their family connection in this scene? > > But things change. As Elkins once asked, can you > picture Fred and > George making Percy spend Christmas with them now? > Not in GoF, at any > rate where Percy's brothers keep as far away from > him as possible. > Now, the whole Ron/Percy dynamic is fascinating > enough, but I would > suggest that it bears little relation to the > F&G/Percy dynamic. > There's a lot more emotion between Ron and Percy. > There are great > displays of pride, cruelty, loathing, and love > between those two. I > once ventured that I believe Ron and Percy to be > very similar in > character. On which of course I was asked for > details. But it is a > post I've never got around to writing. There is no cannon evidence to support the idea that they would not have wanted Percy to be around them at Christmas. Sure, Percy annoys them but when do they ever say, "God, I wish Percy would just go away and leave us alone forever?" > > Fred and George, on the other hand, have no > connection with Percy, as > far as I can see. Where Ron is sincerely bothered by > Percy, the twins > seem to find their brother amusing, a target for > their jokes, and most > disturbingly, a pawn in the war against their > mother. > I think that saying that they are waging a "war" against their mother is very strong wording. This makes it sound as though the twins hate their mother and want to ruin her. IMO, they love their mother very much and they tease her because of this love. I often tease my own mother because I find her little quirks so endearing. I think that Fred and George are the same way. Also, has been previously suggested, Fred and George are middle children and are seeking ways of earning attention from their mother. Obviously, they are not going to earn it with their stellar schoolwork so they earn it by being the clowns. Now, I love Molly as much as the next HP fan but I think that she is making a big mistake in nagging Fred and George as she does. Naturally, she wants them to succeed because she is a loving mother but she is refusing to see them for what they are and is refusing to listen to them when they tell her what they want to do with their lives. If I were in their shoes, I too would be very frustrated with this and would feel resentment toward the brother against whom I was constantly compared in an unflattering light. > "Percy, the perfect prefect," says one of the twins > when their mother > is trying to correct them for their illegalities. > Obviously, Mrs. > Weasley has been holding up Percy as a standard of > behaviour, and Bill > and Charlie as well. But Percy can be got at. The > very unfunny > relentless teasing of Percy at the beginning of PoA > is a case in > point. They are quite obviously ticked off with > their mother's pride > in their brother. Therefore, That's because they're jealous of the pride she shows in them. I think she loves them but they crave her approval and she is not very forthcoming with it when it comes to the twins. I think their bitterness is natural because of this. They want her to look and them and say, "It's fine with me if you go your own way. You don't need to choose the same path as your brothers for me to be proud of you." Again, I think Molly is showing a serious lack of judgement here. She wants the best for them but she is going about it in the wrong way. She wants them to conform to her idea of what they should be and they are resisting her with all their might, as I would if I were in their shoes. > > "How're we getting to King's Cross tomorrow, Dad?" > asked Fred, as they > tucked into a sumptuous chocolate pudding. > > "The Ministry's providing a couple of cars," said > Mr. Weasley. > > Everyone looked up at him. > > "Why?" said Percy curiously. > > "It's because of you, Perce," said George seriously. > "And there'll be > little flags on on the bonnets, with HB on them - " > > "-for Humungous Bighead," said Fred. > > Everyone except Percy and Mrs. Weasey snorted into > their puddings." > > Oh yes, Percy really was just asking for that one, > wasn't he? So > remarkably witty too. Note that even *Mr. Weasley* laughs at that one. Obviously Percy doesn't because he's the butt of the joke. Percy also lacks a sense of humor. Mrs. Weasley also doesn't laugh because she's ticked that the twins don't take her seriously when she urges them to be more like Percy. The twins are pushing her buttons and she doesn't like it. Think about this. Their antics often make her laugh but she is becoming seriously annoyed with them for not conforming to her ideas about how they should live their lives. She is too angry with them to laugh at them as she has in the past. > > But, as many listies have hastened to say, going > after your siblings > is perfectly acceptable behaviour, and makes > everyone love each other > ever so much so more. Well, it doesn't. Let's face > it, of the families > we know are all the adult siblings very cozy with > each other? One of > the worst bullies I know is a cousin who makes the > exact excuse that > he can behave in any way towards his brother. Even > between siblings > who seem friendly enough, there is still a good deal > of resentment > over childhood wrongs. And, as Penny has pointed > out, Percy's coming > out of it so splendidly, isn't he? You're right, teasing among sibling doesn't always end well. So what about Fred and George? What about what all this enormous pressure is doing to their psyches? Why haven't I seen any posts about that? It is not fun to feel like you have to measure up to someone only to find that you are constantly falling short. That can definitely lead to anger and bitterness. The rest of the Weasley clan love and accept Fred and George for what they are. Percy is older and more mature so why on Earth can't he look at his mother and say, "Lay off, Mum. Fred and George aren't like me and they shouldn't have to be. They have their own interests and talents."? > > Another note from the Fred and George file: (Page > 493 GoF) > > "Then Fred said abruptly, "I've told you before, > Ron, keep your nose > out if you like the shape it is." It is not clear to me what your intent was when you inserted this quote. However, I will say that it doesn't strike me as anything particularly disturbing. My brother and I used to constantly make threats like this against each other and we used to carry through on them. We used to kick, punch, and smack each other and he and I called each other far worse things than I have ever heard Fred and George call Percy. Now that we're grown, we are extremely close and laugh about the things we said and did in the past. I'm sorry, but I still maintain that what is going on between the twins and Percy is normal sibling rivalry. Yes, the twins act in a childish manner, but so does Percy who is the supposed adult as he is the one who has graduated and now has a job. I just think it's wrong to portray Percy as the innocent victim. He is doing all her can to provoke the situation and, right or wrong, Fred and George are responding in kind. ~Nicole, who became so impassioned when she wrote this, she felt as though she were channeling Darrin. Thank you, Darrin, for the inspiration behind my spirited defense! __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes http://finance.yahoo.com From nplyon at yahoo.com Tue Aug 27 01:12:31 2002 From: nplyon at yahoo.com (Nicole L.) Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 18:12:31 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Cho is Ever-So-Evil In-Reply-To: <1030383177.1825.14970.m1@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <20020827011231.45746.qmail@web20907.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 43190 Lilac said: > Yes, I agree with you here. I think a true H/Cho > with Harry being the pursuer is out of the question. > But what if Cho pursued him? And they became > friends first? Hey, if she's getting tutorials from > Voldemort, who charmed Ginny with the diary, she > could certainly learn how to charm Harry enough to > get him out Hogwarts. And maybe she *can* redeem > herself...she stops whatever might happen to Harry > by jumping in front of an AK at the last second, for > example. > > I don't know why I like this Cho is ever-so-evil > idea. Maybe it's a sick, twisted attempt to get > back at all those Barbie Doll girls who were really > ugly on the inside.... Frankly, I like this theory for two reasons (when Lilac told me about it, I felt it would be appropriately "bangy"): 1. I think Cho is boring. Yes, she is pretty, yes she is a good seeker, and yes she is nice to Harry. Big deal. To be honest, I think she's pretty pointless to the story. 2. I definitely think the potential is there for her to decide that she needs to avenge Cedric's death. Maybe she'll start by wanting to attack Voldemort and then once she meets up with Voldie, he'll win her to his side by telling her a pack of lies about what happened. I don't think Voldie's going to get to any of the Weasleys, Dumbledore, Sirius, or Hermione, so I think Cho is the next best option. When you are in love with someone, especially young love, you will often do all kinds of stupid things in an effort to win that person over. I think that Cho could be very effective in getting information out of Harry and in engineering misfortunate events for him. ~Nicole, who likes this theory more than the idea of Ron turning against Harry. That I do *not* like. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes http://finance.yahoo.com From pennylin at swbell.net Tue Aug 27 01:34:47 2002 From: pennylin at swbell.net (Penny Linsenmayer) Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 20:34:47 -0500 Subject: In Defense of Percy (WAS In Defense of Fred and George) References: <20020827010221.75201.qmail@web20901.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <00d501c24d69$eda39220$4f5ffea9@cq5hs01> No: HPFGUIDX 43191 Hi -- I must make just one small point here .... Eileen said: > > Now, I find it quite telling that in the > Potterverse, "Shut up!" seems > to be a gentle inoffensive almost endearing form of > adress among boys. > (And in my family as well, I must say.) Our first > Percy/twins exchange > reminds me of this. Fred and George make fun of > Percy's pride at being > a prefect, and Percy tells them to shut up. I > wouldn't say there was > much resentment between them > at that point. Later in the book, there is the > heartwarming sweater > scene, where it's obvious that Percy has dropped in > because he wants > to be with the rest of the family, and that Fred and > George really > treasure their older brother. Nicole responded: <<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>> Eh, eh, eh. Careful! We don't know what Percy *wants* to do. There's no indication that he planned to sit with the prefects or that he *wanted* to sit with the prefects. No. All we know is that the Twins *assume* he would want this, but as Eileen noted, it's clear that Percy dropped in because it was Christmas morning and he wanted to be with his family. The Twins don't *have to* order him to sit with the family. They jovially tease him in a way that suggests that he'd better not think about it being any other way, and I have to say that this is a nice dynamic between the brothers. I would say that all the brothers are valuing the family connection in this scene. Eileen again:> But things change. As Elkins once asked, can you > picture Fred and > George making Percy spend Christmas with them now? > Not in GoF, at any > rate where Percy's brothers keep as far away from > him as possible. > Now, the whole Ron/Percy dynamic is fascinating > enough, but I would > suggest that it bears little relation to the > F&G/Percy dynamic. > There's a lot more emotion between Ron and Percy. > There are great > displays of pride, cruelty, loathing, and love > between those two. I > once ventured that I believe Ron and Percy to be > very similar in > character. On which of course I was asked for > details. But it is a > post I've never got around to writing. Nicole's response: <<<<<>>>>>>>>>> I think you're looking for canon evidence that is *direct* and clearcut. No, you're not going to find it. But, there has been a subtle ongoing change in the Weasley family dynamic, IMO, in the course of the 4 books, and I'd have to agree with Elkins and Eileen that things are deteriorating by GoF. It's not completely the fault of any one family member by any means. But, things are not all sweetness and light by this point. Penny P.I.N.E. Founder (who hopes that Eileen will write her post comparing Ron and Percy, though she should be sure to consult Debbie's excellent post on this topic (Message 38730), which, IMO, might be one of the most thought-provoking HP4GU posts ever ...) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From rvotaw at i-55.com Tue Aug 27 02:04:02 2002 From: rvotaw at i-55.com (Richelle Votaw) Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 21:04:02 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Harry's tears, a new twist References: Message-ID: <001c01c24d6e$05e796c0$6c9dcdd1@istu757> No: HPFGUIDX 43192 Well, I've actually had to think on this one a while before I could blurt out a reply, had to take a shower and everything. I think better in the shower, so after a nice hot one, here I go: Mike Zitzmann writes: > That now brings us to the heir of Gryffindor. I think we can safely > assume that Harry is the heir to Gryffindor. What special power > would be passed down for Harry to use? > > I think this is it, Harry's eyes. The healing powers are not for > Harry to mend his sole from crying. Healing powers, tears from his > eyes, might be just what JK has in store for him. The ability to > heal others with his tears the same as Fawkes can. One problem with this. The general assumption, I believe, is that Harry is the heir of Gryffindor on his father's side. The "pure blood" side. Yet he has his mother's green eyes, as we are so constantly reminded. So this would mean one of two things. a) Lily is not really a Muggle born and we're constantly misled OR b) only the *color* of the eyes comes from her and doesn't really matter. Though I like to think the whole green eye thing is what is magical about them, which presents a bit of a problem with this theory, unless Lily was the heir of Gryffindor. If James was the heir of Gryffindor, he hasn't got the green eyes if they *come* from Gryffindor. Okay, enough of that, I'm getting confused. > Just think of this scene, or a similar one, Hermione dying as she > saved Harry from Voldermort or Nigina, allowing Harry to finish off > Voldermort with blind rage seeing Hermione fall to the ground. Then > just watching Harry go to his knees, finally crying on Hermione. > His soon finds out the unexpected twist, she is healed by his > tears. Just a though. Hmm, well, I don't know that Harry's actual tears will heal anyone, however, perhaps it is through his tears that he will discover the powers hidden within? A sort of emotional triggering of a hidden magical power in his eyes that he never knew he had? Don't know that this goes along with the Gryffindor theory laid out earlier, but it would make sense. An emotional cleansing that allowed Harry's magical powers to flow freely. Richelle From hp_fan16 at yahoo.com Tue Aug 27 01:20:12 2002 From: hp_fan16 at yahoo.com (hp_fan16) Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 01:20:12 -0000 Subject: Arthur Weasley Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43193 I've just resently joined, (custumary hellos, his, and welcomes) and my primary focuses were that of lilly being spared,(I've sen many threads pertaining to this,) and the futures respectivly of Sirius Black and Remus Lupin, (also much on theese.) While scanning the site I aslo found many other interesting topics. There has been much on the Weasely's as well as the MoM. when i finished GoF, i had been under the impression that Bill had been sent to his father to not only inform him of the nights happenings, but as well as have he lead an uprising within the ministry. I believe most thought this as well, but where my opinion seems to differ, is that I also thought Arthur was going to become the misiter of magic. I was lead to believe this by Mrs Weasley's comments. "It's Arthurs fondess of Muggles that has held him back at the Ministry all theese years." I thought that she was implying that Arthur could easily have a gained a seat of 'power' but he chose not to, which i thought also implied he was about to. Perhaps i'm alone in my thinking and assumptions. I would just like to know if any others saw it that way, or indeed what they thought was implied. -Normal- ~the ugly Veela~ -judging a book by it's cover is quite the normal thing to do, after all that's why it's there- From Vera.Nazarov at sjeccd.cc.ca.us Tue Aug 27 01:26:41 2002 From: Vera.Nazarov at sjeccd.cc.ca.us (selkie1964) Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 01:26:41 -0000 Subject: US Insanity and Translations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43194 bboy_mn wrote >A while back, I start a thread about how stupid I thought it was to >translate people surnames when translating the book into other >languages. The worst example was Professor DUMBledore being changed >to Professor Silencio in Italian. My name is my name regardless of >where I am in the world. But some people debate that opinion. Actually, since JKR has gone to such a great deal of trouble to use names that have a level of meaning beyond being someone's "handle," I think it makes a great deal of sense to translate them for the benefit of non-speakers of English -- to not do so would be ethnocentric. These books were primarily written for children, not linguistic scholars, so I would think that everything possible would be done to make the experience of reading them as similar as possible for everyone concerned -- including all the richness of connotation we've all come to know and love (and endlessly debate ;-). While it is true that *your* name is your name wherever you are, bear in mind that you are a real person whereas the characters in the HP books are literary constructs (i.e., not real people) in a work of literature. Since Albus Dumbledore et al. are literary constructs, it really doesn't "affect" them to have their names changed (as it would, in a very real sense, affect you and me to have our names changed) for the sake of clarifying aspects of character for readers in another country. Also, as a literary construct, a character's name affects how he is perceived by members of another culture/speakers of another language. It's also possible that the actual word "dumbledore" (and other names, natch) has connotations in other languages that are inappropriate to the character (for instance, in French, although I don't know what dumble might connote, the sound "dore" -- or "d'or" -- translates as "of gold" -- I'm not saying that's inappropriate, just using it as an instance in which a sound could have a different meaning/connotation in another language). I'm reminded of the Tintin comic books by Herge. One of the characters in the original French is Tryphon Tournesol -- a name which connotes precisely bupkus to the average English reader. However, once you know his name in the English version is Cuthbert Calculus, you all of a sudden have some insight into the character without knowing a single thing about him (in the books, he's a profoundly hard-of-hearing, absent-minded professor/inventor type -- extremely fussy, somewhat vain, courtly and genteel when he remembers to be, a bit prudish, not really with it socially, etc., etc., etc.) In the final analysis, I sincerely doubt that the publishers changed important things like names in JKR's books without her input (or at the very least, her permission). For one thing, since she owns the copyright, that could open them up to some very damaging lawsuits. selkie1964 From Vera.Nazarov at sjeccd.cc.ca.us Tue Aug 27 01:41:37 2002 From: Vera.Nazarov at sjeccd.cc.ca.us (selkie1964) Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 01:41:37 -0000 Subject: Did Hagrid apparate? In-Reply-To: <20020817000458.6180.qmail@web20003.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43195 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Rebecca Stephens wrote: > Actually, ever since I found out about Floo powder, > I've just been assuming that's what Hagrid meant, and > that Harry misunderstood. Figured he went from > Hogsmeande to Diagon Alley and then to the leaky > cauldron. Later, taking into account that he wasn't > familiar with Muggle things considered that he might > have arrived at Mrs. Figgs or somewhere near Harry. > It's just that I've been assuming that Harry heard > "flew" when Hagrid said "Floo." Does this make any > sense? > Well, but Harry and the Dursleys were *way* far away from anywhere. You remember that Harry's last letter (the one he *finally* gets, directly from Hagrid) was addressed to Mr. Harry Potter, The Floor, Hut on the Rock, The Sea, and that Vernon Dursley had driven them all over the place all that day and all the previous day (they spent the night at a hotel the first night). Getting Hagrid to the Leaky Cauldron in London doesn't do much toward getting him to where Harry actually *is*. How did he get from the Leaky Cauldron to the hut on the rock out at sea (especially without a boat, as they had to "borrow" the boat Vernon Dursley hired to get back to the mainland). I was also under the impression (please correct me if I'm wrong) that Floo Powder is used for travel between fireplaces. Not certain if both fires (sending and receiving) need to actually be lit, although every one I can remember has been, but regardless, Hagrid didn't appear in the fireplace in the hut (which was not lit) but outside as he had to smash the door in to enter. Also, if Hagrid had been traveling by Floo Powder, there was no reason why he couldn't travel that way with Harry. Even though the Dursleys are muggles, they obviously know Harry is a wizard so I don't think the magic prohibitions are as strict about them -- Hermione's parents, after all, are allowed *into* Diagon Alley. Besides, the Weasleys use Floo Powder to come and collect Harry at the Dursley's home at the beginning of GoF. "selkie" From Vera.Nazarov at sjeccd.cc.ca.us Tue Aug 27 02:08:47 2002 From: Vera.Nazarov at sjeccd.cc.ca.us (selkie1964) Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 02:08:47 -0000 Subject: Portkeys (originally: Godric'sHollow/Pettigrew/a bunch of stuff) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43196 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "catlady_de_los_angeles" wrote: > Vera Selkie wrote: > > << so the portkey magic would, of necessity, have to be a "lowest > common denominator" sort -- if you have any magical ability at all, > you can invoke it; if you're a muggle, you can't. >> > > I thought that Portkeys would work even on Muggles... Canon says: > "Unobtrusive things, obviously, so Muggles don't go picking them up > and playing with them..." which doesn't make it clear whether the > Muggle who picked one up would suddenly find himself elsewhere, or > merely make life inconvenient for the wizard who wanted to use that > Portkey. > Well, but since they went to such great lengths to conceal the tournament (and in general MoM goes to such great lengths to conceal the existence of the WW from muggles), do you really think they'd leave something lying around that any muggle child might pick up and be transported by? Children (wizard or muggle) will pick up and play with the darnedest things. My understanding (dim as it might be) was that the portkeys needed to be unobtrusive because they had to be set up in advance due to the massiveness of the transportation effort. They were made to look "trashy" so that they wouldn't be taken or moved by a muggle (child or otherwise) and seriously inconvenience not only the people who were going to use that particular portkey, but the entire transportation schedule -- this was a vast operation and a small glitch in the timetable could very quickly snowball into something unmanageable -- just think of our own muggle freeway traffic jams. They could, I suppose, have entrusted each portkey to one person who would be using it from that particular site and have them all meet up at a prearranged time, but then what if that person failed to show up for some reason or another, or was late? There goes the schedule. Also, if a portkey were removed, how would those who needed to use it (and who presumably couldn't apparate, for one reason or another) get to the tournament? Imagine the logistical nightmare of trying to arrange last-minute secret transportation for any number of paying customers who would most likely demand that such arrangements be made. I think it's likely that a muggle *could* be transported by a portkey, but only in the direct physical presence of (i.e., touching) someone with the talent to invoke it. Just my reading of the facts... :-) selkie1964 From purple_801999 at yahoo.com Tue Aug 27 03:16:31 2002 From: purple_801999 at yahoo.com (purple_801999) Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 03:16:31 -0000 Subject: September 1st weather. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43197 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "ephantom1" wrote: EP wrote- > I have noticed something interesting in the four books. As you go > from one book to the next, the weather of September 1st, more > specifically, the weather when they arrive at Hogwarts gets > progressively worse. In SS/PS it's fine from what I recall, in CoS it > is very cloudy, in PoA it's raining rather strongly, and in GoF there > is a full on storm. Dunno what conclusions can be drawn from this, > but it is a rather interesting pattern. > It could be seen as symbolic perhaps as Harry's situation get more and more dire and mysterious only to be resolved in spring. It's also very beneficial to setting the mood for wandering around a creepy magical castle in the middle of the night. -Olivia From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Tue Aug 27 03:19:48 2002 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (bboy_mn) Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 03:19:48 -0000 Subject: Arthur Weasley In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43198 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "hp_fan16" wrote: -Normal-~the ugly Veela~ Said: There has been much on the Weasely's as well as the MoM. when i finished GoF, i had been under the impression that Bill had been sent to his father to not only inform him of the nights happenings, but as well as have he lead an uprising within the ministry. -- end this part -- BBoy_mn responds: "Uprising"; figuratively Yes, litterally No. He is going to rally support for Dumbledore within the Ministry. Since Minister Fudge is refusing to believe Voldemort is back; it's up to Arthur to inform and mobilize as many people as he can as fast as he can, in order to get people actively working against Voldemort as soon as possible. His goal is not to take over the government, and not to act against Fudge. While he may act against Fudge's wishes, he had no desire to act against Fudge personally. Now at some point, it may get so bad that people realize that they have to get Fudge out of office because he is becoming a hinderance to the cause, but that removal will be done politically, not subversively. -- end bboy_mn this part -- -Normal-~the ugly Veela~ Continued: I believe most thought this as well, but where my opinion seems to differ, is that I also thought Arthur was going to become the misiter of magic. I was lead to believe this by Mrs Weasley's comments. "It's Arthurs fondess of Muggles that has held him back at the Ministry all theese years." I thought that she was implying that Arthur could easily have a gained a seat of 'power' but he chose not to, which i thought also implied he was about to. Perhaps i'm alone in my thinking and assumptions. I would just like to know if any others saw it that way, or indeed what they thought was implied. -Normal- ~the ugly Veela~ BBoy_mn Adds: Well first, I can see Arthur as Minister of Magic at the end of and possibly before the end of book 7. He's intelligent, he's diplomatic to some extent, he's hard working, open minded, and well liked. Also, he is NOT power hungry or politically motivated. His 'love of his office' would never stop him from seeing the obvious. So, yes, I can see Arthur as Minister of Magic. Quite a change for the Weasley family, to go from a poor family of a obscure office worker, to (a degree of) wealth and the most powerful position in the wizard world. While I don't think Mrs. Weasley statement was meant to imply that Arthur deserved to be at or near the top of the government, I certain think she meant, and I agree, that Arthur should have had an important and substantial position within the government. I don't think Arthur is the type to seek out a position like Minister of Magic, but, if he thought it was his duty, felt is was for the greater good, and had substantial support; I think he would be a good citizen and take the job. While Arthur nearly alway yeilds to Molly, I think Arthur can be strong, forceful, and determined when necessary. Just some thoughts. bboy_mn From jferer at yahoo.com Tue Aug 27 03:21:12 2002 From: jferer at yahoo.com (jferer) Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 03:21:12 -0000 Subject: Hermione's placement In-Reply-To: <004301c24d52$8a0a8f00$4a112b18@shprd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43199 Alina:"Hermione in the end of PS/SS told Harry that "bravery and courage" are more important than "books and cleverness". She values the Gryffindor attributes more than she values the Ravenclaw ones. I believe that's the reason she's in Gryffindor." Yes! There's a lot more to Hermione that books and cleverness, and we (and Hermione) are discovering what it is more and more. ========================================================== Dumbledore sat down and picked up his cup. "It does seem strange that after all this time we've not had the opportunity to get to know each other. Have you ever thought, Miss Granger, why it is that you, the best student this school has seen in many years, are in Gryffindor House and not in Ravenclaw?" Hermione looked uncomfortable, as she always did when she faced a question she couldn't answer instantly; but there was more to her uneasiness. "I don't know, Professor. I suppose that I was too busy to wonder about it. Not just with schoolwork, I mean, but with helping Harry... I really don't know why." "Indeed, Miss Granger. You helped Harry. The Sorting Hat is very old and very subtle, and it has seen dangerous times before. It not only knows what is best suited for each student, it knows what is best for the school and our world at large. And when the Hat senses Hogwarts needs a champion to defend it, it chooses one. Or two. Or several." Hermione stared at the Headmaster. "Do you mean the Hat chose me - and Ron too? - to help and support Harry? And not just for what I was suited for? I didn't know it would do that..." her voice trailed off. "Ah, Miss Granger, the Sorting Hat knew what it was doing for your sake, too. Consider. You came here with intelligence and talent, ready to acquire knowledge. When you leave here you will have all that, but you will also have wisdom and bravery you scarcely imagined. Among the great you are, and will be, all because of the experiences you have been through. I haver never seen any student grow the way you have in the time you have been here. I never shall again." =============================================================== I put that point in the form of a little vignette because I hope it illustrates the drift of how there are choices being made all over the place, and not just by humans. And, like in our Muggle world, things happen for a reason. From cindysphynx at comcast.net Tue Aug 27 03:26:44 2002 From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (cindysphynx) Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 03:26:44 -0000 Subject: Fred and George: The Bullies You Do Know In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43200 Abigail wrote: >I'm beginning to find the "are they or aren't they" part of this >debate a bit tedious, especially > since, Elkins' definitions notwithstanding, it seems that everyone >has a different idea of what constitutes bullying, and this idea is >very strongly coloured by personal experience. I remain >convinced that *it just doesn't matter* whether F&G are bullies, >because we were never meant to analyze their actions > as deeply as we do. We were never meant to analyze the actions of the twins in this fashion? The discussion is getting "tedious" because people have different ideas about what constitutes bullying? Well, OK. And here I thought that the vast differences of opinion, the varying points of view, and the extent to which this discussion was colored by personal experience was half the fun. Silly me! ;-) As for whether we are "meant" to analyze the twins' actions . . . well, why wouldn't we be? If there are some clues in the text that indicate that a character is a bully (or a thief, or a racist, or an elitist or what have you), how can we be certain the author meant for us to blow past these clues? It strikes me as quite reasonable that JKR may have added the "bullying" component of the twins' characterization precisely to give them depth and dimension. True, different readers might react to some of the twins' actions in different ways. Which, IMHO, simply means that JKR *succeeded* in making the twins multi-dimensional, regardless of whether that was her original goal. Elkins wrote (about the definitions of bullying and bullying behavior): > A social, verbal or physical action is "bullying" if it fit the >below criteria: > > -- is it behavior that could be reasonably assumed by a person of the > instigator(s)' age, intellect, and experience to cause pain, > discomfort, humiliation or embarrassment to the victim? > > -- has it happened more than once? > > -- has the instigator persisted in the behavior even after the >victim has demonstrated that s/he resents this behavior or is >bothered by it? > > -- is there a real or perceived power imbalance between the victim > and the instigator(s), is the victim incapable of retaliating > effectively in kind, or is the victim unusually and specifically > vulnerable in the arena targetted by the behavior? > > If the answer to all four of these questions is "yes," then >bullying is taking place. OK, I'll endeavor to keep this on topic, but I will have to veer wildly away from canon for just a minute. I swear, I'll try to get to the point quickly. Something intrigued me about this definition of bullying. One of the *requirements* in this definition for labeling someone a bullying is that they have engaged in certain behavior "more than once." If they only engage in bullying behavior once (even if all of the other criteria are met), they are not a bully under this definition. Contrast this with the definition I pulled out my hip pocket farther up this thread, where I wrote: >Are the twins bullies? I guess we have to define our >terms a bit. I'll play it safe. To me, a bully is someone who >engages in bullying behavior, including any form of victimizing >weaker individuals. Now, in my mind, before I read the definition Elkins quoted above, I would never have dreamed that someone is *not* a bully if they bully only once. After all, murder once and you are a murderer. Steal once and you are a thief. Beat your wife once and you are a wife- beater. Indeed, in the case of domestic violence, the prevailing wisdom is that if someone engages in the behavior *even once* for any reason, the victim is advised to recognize the relationship for what it is and get out. There should be no second chances for perpetrators of domestic violence, it is said. Nevertheless, bullies get one free bite at the apple before they are labeled "bullies." Why? My guess is that the reason we don't label someone a bully the very first time they victimize a weaker person is because of Real World proof problems. If there's a scuffle on the playground, perhaps you can't easily be sure who is the perpetrator or even whether one individual is necessarily weaker. It takes a number of observations to be sure that you're seeing bullying behavior and not something else, perhaps. Fair enough. But, of course, when we analyze HP canon, we're not talking about the Real World. Instead, we have essentially only one side of the story ? Harry's side. If Harry reports that the twins hissed a Slyth, we believe him. If he reports that the twins stepped on unconscious foes deliberately, we believe him. So then. Here's my question: In analyzing the text, is it really possible to use Real World definitions of bullying that require the observance of a *pattern* of bullying behavior? Or, given that we have no reason to question Harry's perceptions of the circumstances of the alleged bullying behavior, should we dump the requirement that bullying requires more than one occurrence? Should we adjust our definition of bullying to account for the point of view limitations in the text, given that we are limited only to what Harry is positioned to observe? Now, you see where I'm going with this. If we can drop the requirement of a pattern of bullying behavior, the twins come a lot closer to being lovable, comical, affable students who just happen also to be bullies. Cindy -- who thinks this discussion is one of the more interesting we've seen in a while, and who is amazed that everyone has managed to stay on topic From suzchiles at pobox.com Tue Aug 27 03:30:59 2002 From: suzchiles at pobox.com (Suzanne Chiles) Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 20:30:59 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: September 1st weather. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43201 > > It could be seen as symbolic perhaps as Harry's situation get more > and more dire and mysterious only to be resolved in spring. It's also > very beneficial to setting the mood for wandering around a creepy > magical castle in the middle of the night. > > -Olivia I do believe it is symbolic. But good gracious, that was a pretty rough storm for Book 4. At this rate, by Book 7 we'll be looking at earthquakes, and goodness knows what else! Suzanne From suzchiles at pobox.com Tue Aug 27 03:43:03 2002 From: suzchiles at pobox.com (Suzanne Chiles) Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 20:43:03 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Fred and George: The Bullies You Do Know In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43202 > We were never meant to analyze the actions of the twins in this > fashion? The discussion is getting "tedious" because people have > different ideas about what constitutes bullying? I don't think the discussion is, in and of itself, tedious. But for me, what's starting to become tedious for me are so many who want these wonderful books to be more politically correct. If JKR had written these books to satisfy everyone's suggestions, I think the books would be hideously boring. What would Hogwarts be like if there was always a well-meaning teacher who stopped everything whenever Fred and George or Draco started exhibiting certain behaviors? And how much fun would be books be if the Dursleys were more tolerant and less strict with Harry? Or if there was nothing at Hogwarts that was dangerous? Or if Harry, Hermione, and Ron didn't break the rules as often as they do? Yes, Fred and George grate on my nerves sometimes. Overall, I find them quite charming and funny, but sometimes they're jerks too. Not bullies, but jerks. Rather like real life, which normally is not PC, but runs a full gamut of the nice and wonderful to the awful and ugly. And lots and lots of gray areas. I think Rowling does a wonderful job of showing us that gamut, and showing us that some of our most beloved and favorite characters have some areas of gray as well. Just my 2 knuts, Suzanne From jasnyder at intrex.net Tue Aug 27 03:59:43 2002 From: jasnyder at intrex.net (Jen Snyder) Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 22:59:43 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Trelawney deserves credit, But so does Ron! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43203 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Ambir Adams" wrote: > I actually think Ron is a bit more accurate with his predictions, > although he doesn't realize it yet. Most of everything he said to > Harry has happened, or did happen. As for predictions by Ron, in Talons and Tealeaves he saw the acorn in Harry's teacup as being "a windfall, unexpected gold." - the prize for the Triwizard tournament. This brings up something I've been thinking about, sparked by all the posts about Professor Trelawney's accuracy. I've been rereading PoA and I thought of something...how interesting would it be if, in the first scene where we meet Trelawney, all her seemingly accurate/impressive predictions are wrong, but Ron and Harry's seemingly inaccurate and silly (to them) predictions are right? consider the following exchange (American PoA, p. 105-106): Harry: "Right, you've got a crooked sort of cross...that means you're going to have 'trials and suffering--sorry about that--but there's a thing that could be the sun...hang on...that means 'great happiness'...so you're going to suffer but be very happy...' Ron: "There's a blob a bit like a bowler hat...maybe you're going to work for the Ministry of Magic...but this way it looks more like an acorn...'a windfall, unexpected gold'. Excellent, you can lend me some...and there's a thing here...that looks like an animal...it look like a hippo...no, a sheep" (with some judicious editing) Foreshadowing? suffering but eventual great happiness for Ron? Harry working with/for the MoM in Order of the Phoenix? The windfall might refer to winning the Triwizard Tournament but could also refer to the leprechaun gold in GoF (which Harry does lend to Ron). And the animal could be a (hippo)griff, or Sirius as dog. I don't know if I believe that Ron is always right (although I have noticed that even his off-hand predictions are often right), but I find a lovely irony in a scene where the person who thinks they are right is wrong and the two characters who think they are fudging things as best they can are actually speaking the truth. Jen [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From millergal8 at aol.com Tue Aug 27 03:23:46 2002 From: millergal8 at aol.com (millergal8 at aol.com) Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 23:23:46 EDT Subject: Arthur Weasley Message-ID: <164.12e80979.2a9c4ac2@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 43204 In a message dated 8/26/02 7:42:00 PM Pacific Daylight Time, hp_fan16 at yahoo.com writes: << Perhaps i'm alone in my thinking and assumptions. I would just like to know if any others saw it that way, or indeed what they thought was implied. >> You are certainly not alone. I too have had this same theory for some time now. We already know that the Weasly's are a highly resected (though financially lacking) wizarding family, so Authur apparently has clout in society. I think it is faily obvious that whether Fudge turns out to be evil or just plain stupid, his days as minister are numbered. He will either rot in Azkaban(or whatever alternative comes up in subsequent books), or be remembered forever and always as the man who looked the other way as Voldemort came back to power. And can't you just see the look on Dracos face if Ron's dad was to hold the highest position in wizarding society! Overall, I think the Weasly's karma ensures they will be paid back. What better way then Authur being Minster? Christy From cindysphynx at comcast.net Tue Aug 27 03:54:19 2002 From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (cindysphynx) Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 03:54:19 -0000 Subject: Fred and George: The Bullies You Do Know In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43205 Suzanne wrote: > I don't think the discussion is, in and of itself, tedious. But >for me, what's starting to become tedious for me are so many who >want these wonderful books to be more politically correct. See, I don't agree with this. I'm certainly not saying that I want JKR to have written the twins differently or to have made them "politically correct," whatever that means in this context. I think the twins are Bullies, and I think their flaws give them depth. I think we can agree that Snape is Mean. I don't wish JKR had written Snape differently. His flaws give him depth. Sirius is a Hot-Head and is Impulsive. I don't wish JKR had written Sirius differently. His flaws give him depth. At the same time, I think it would deny the words on the page to some extent to claim that Snape is not a Mean Man. Or that Sirius is not a Hot-Head. So how is it different and "tedious" for someone to read the text and form the opinion that the twins are Bullies? I must say that I am struck by the reluctance to deny the flaws that the twins have, whether you think those flaws rise to the level of bullying or not. Many characters in HP have flaws, including some of my favorites, like Lupin and Moody. Why not just admit the flawed behavior and embrace the character anyway, if that is what you prefer? Why claim that some flaws are unimportant and some harm the character causes is to be dismissed because the character is supposed to be a flat "Toonish" cariacature? I guess the most that can be said is that some readers look for and appreciate richness and depth in characters, even if the depth comes from character flaws, and some readers are uncomfortable with that. To each his own, I guess. Cindy -- who *would* change Hagrid's flaws to tone them down because she finds them over the top, unbelievable and excessive, but that's a different debate entirely From grega126 at aol.com Tue Aug 27 03:55:02 2002 From: grega126 at aol.com (greg_a126) Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 03:55:02 -0000 Subject: MAGIC DISHWASHER (Was: Re: Wandless!Harry - A Fatal Flaw?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43206 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "grey_wolf_c" wrote: > Me, a last time: > > > And finally, I repeat the basic of Voldemort's reasoning to let > > > Harry leave: While it is true that he probably needs to kill the > > > boy, he has still got three years more before Harry finishes his > > > training (and from Voldemort's PoV, probably even a few years more. > > > If I was Voldemort, I'd hardly expect Dumbledore to send Harry > > > against me at the immediate end of his training). > > Greg, finally: > > This is just the definition of bad military tactics. You said it > > yourself, "He needs to kill the boy." If that graveyard scene had > > happened w/ just about any other wizard, I would find it much more > > likely that Voldemort would try a disinformation campaign. But > > whatever reason existed 14 years ago for him to want to kill this > > little brat still exists. If he's just lost his mother's > > protection, I as Voldemort, make sure to kill him before Dumbledore > > comes up w/ some other enchantment, like he's using at his > > relative's house, to keep this kid safe permanently. > > > > Greg > > But Voldemort isn't sure that he *can* kill the boy, so he takes it > into consideration for his plans. Why, exactly, can he not kill the boy? He has the boy, tied to a gravestone, in the middle of a cemetary, miles from protection. He even has a knife Wormtail had for the ceremony to finish him off. If Voldemort doesn't think Avada Kedvara will work, I think an awfully bad way to find out for sure would be to do the same thing that left him w/o a body for 13 years. If he isn't sure that magical methods will kill the kid, he's going to have to do it eventually, why not do it now before he fully grows into his body. Let's not forget that Voldemort considered a 1 year old Harry Potter a big enough threat to get himself killed. Why would a 14 year old Harry Potter not be an infinately bigger threat, and if he plans on allowing him to escape, a 20 year old Harry Potter an even bigger threat than that? >And the fact is that events prove him > right: he is unable to kill the boy in the graveyard, but even if he > *had* killed him, his plans would've still have included the posibility > of escpaing. Voldemort cannot see the future. He plans, and prepares > contingency plans. Which means, in this case, that he planned to > resurrect and then, once resurrected he planned *trying* to kill the > brat, but also feed him false information *just in case* Harry happened > to scape again. Here's my other big problem w/ this whole idea. I'm coming up w/ a big blank on any important information Harry brought back. Names, but Dumbledore (via Snape) probably knew about all of them before, and unless Voldemort wants to get rid of his followers I can't really imagine why he'd be jumping up & down to pass this information along to Dumbledore. And the other thing was his plans to recruit the Dementors & Giants, which, to my recollection, Dumbledore assumed Voldemort would do w/o ever having to ask Harry. If Voldemort had started to rant and rave about every witch & wizard he was planning on killing & in what order, that'd be one thing. But the information that Harry brought back, just does not seem anywhere near as important as his death would be. And, Lo and Behold! that is exactly what happened: > Harry *did* manage to escape, even though Voldemort first debilitated > him and then tried to AK him. > > When objecting to MAGIC DISHWASHER, people tend to miss the main point > of the idea: that there are *plans* behind what is happening to Harry. > There was a plan behind the shack scene, engineered by Dumbledore, > which almost went *very* wrong. And there was a plan behind the > Graveyard Gathering which *included* Harry either *dead or escaped*. > And we know that because Voldemort isn't stupid, and he *didn't* have > to talk before Harry. So, since he did, he must have had something else > in mind. > > Hope that helps, > > Grey Wolf (I remember the post about there being more to the shack scene that was just on the surface, but a brief summary of the "Magical Dishwaser" sure would be nice.) Greg From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Tue Aug 27 04:26:23 2002 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (bboy_mn) Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 04:26:23 -0000 Subject: US Insanity and Translations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43207 -- In HPforGrownups at y..., "selkie1964" wrote: > bboy_mn wrote > > > A while back, I start a thread about how stupid I thought it > > was to translate people surnames when translating the book into > > other languages. The worst example was Professor DUMBledore being > > changed to Professor Silencio in Italian. My name is my name > > regardless of where I am in the world. But some people debate > > that opinion. > > selkie1964 said: > Actually, since JKR has gone to such a great deal of trouble to > use names that have a level of meaning beyond being someone's > "handle," I think it makes a great deal of sense to translate them > for the benefit of non-speakers of English -- to not do so would be > ethnocentric. > > These books were primarily written for children, not linguistic > scholars, so I would think that everything possible would be done to > make the experience of reading them as similar as possible for > everyone concerned -- including all the richness of connotation > we've all come to know and love (and endlessly debate ;-). > > While it is true that *your* name is your name wherever you are, > bear in mind that you are a real person whereas the characters in > the HP books are literary constructs (i.e., not real people) in a > work of literature. Since Albus Dumbledore et al. are literary > constructs, it really doesn't "affect" them to have their names > changed (as it would, in a very real sense, affect you and me to > have our names changed) for the sake of clarifying aspects of > character for readers in another country. Also, as a literary > construct, a character's name affects how he is perceived by > members of another culture/speakers of another language. It's > also possible that the actual word "dumbledore" (and other names, > natch) has connotations in other languages that are inappropriate > to the character (for instance, in French, although I don't know > what dumble might connote, the sound "dore" -- or "d'or" -- > translates as "of gold" -- I'm not saying that's inappropriate, > just using it as an instance in which a sound could have a different > meaning/connotation in another language). > > ....EDITED..... > > In the final analysis, I sincerely doubt that the publishers changed > important things like names in JKR's books without her input (or at > the very least, her permission). For one thing, since she owns the > copyright, that could open them up to some very damaging lawsuits. > > selkie1964 bboy_mn responds: I'm sure I also said that to some degree and under some circumstances translation was reasonable. Even given that, I do not yield on my stand that, in general, your name is your name. You used the example of Dumbledore, while you can deconstruct the name Dumbledore into a variety of meanings, in this case, it is simply a cool nice sounding old English name that means 'Bumblebee', BUT 'bumblebee' has no significance in the story, and the Italian translation of DUMBledore to Silencio in no way preserves the significance of the name. Rowling personally pointed this out as an example of bad translation. Beside, the books have been translated into hundreds of languages; Rowling can't possible review them all. So, while Dumbledore does have an interesting but trivial historical meaning, that particular meaning has no significance in the story. So why is it translated? Why translate a name that has no significants relative to the story? Dumbledore doesn't give the average English speaking person any significant insight into his character's role in the story. Changing it serves no purpose. Although, Chinese and difficult languages like that might be an exception. I will admit that names are chosen to reflect their character; between Harry Potter and Draco Malfoy, or Dumbledore and Voldemort, most people can guess who is the good guy and who is the bad guy. So, in a culture where a phrase sounding very close to Dumbledore had a very negative meaning, it would be reasonable to assign a lighter name. But that is a rare and limited case. Now, Remus Lupin had tremendous significant, but only to the very astute, only to the very knowledgeable and educated. Remus and Romulus are the mythical twin sons of Mars, and we raised by wolves. See HP-Remus is a werewolf and Mythical-Remus was raised by wolves. Lupin is part of the root of a word for the medical condition that refers to people who are or believe they are werewolves. So that name is loaded with tons of significant, but it is very subtle. Very few English speaking people are going to pick up those obscure references to mythology and medicine. So if a translator, into French for example, uses the French name for that particular mythical character, and uses the same French reference to that medical condition, then the name and it's significants has been preserved. But to what end? So that obsessed French insomniacs like ourselves can stay up late an night discovering subtle hidden interesting but otherwise insignificant meanings in characters names? Sirius Black is also full of significants, but the significants is only recognizable if you are knowledgeable in astronomy. Sirius is the Dog Star, and of course, Sirius Black is an animagus dog; a dog who happens to be black. So if a translator used the word in a native language that refers to the Dog star then the obscure significant is preserved. However, I'm guessing that there are thousands, if not millions of English readers who don't pick up on this obscure significants. The main point is that even a lot of the names that do have significant, only have secondary significants. They are interesting little asides that a very educated and knowledgable Rowling has thrown in for people who want to dig a little deeper than the surface of the story. So, I go back to my original stand; a name is a name. With the exception of situations where there is an obvious cultural conflict, or in the case of Chinese, Japanese, and other complex symbolic languages, or where the name itself has direct significants to the story, there is no need to translate peoples names. The DEFAULT should be, only translate when significant and necessary. That's my story and I'm sticking to it. bboy_mn From judyshapiro at earthlink.net Tue Aug 27 04:53:38 2002 From: judyshapiro at earthlink.net (judyserenity) Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 04:53:38 -0000 Subject: In Defense of Molly (Was: In Defense of Fred and George) In-Reply-To: <20020827010221.75201.qmail@web20901.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43208 Well, it seems to be "Annual Defend the Weasleys Week" on HPfGU! We've heard defenses of Percy, Fred, and George, we've seen speculation that Arthur will run the MoM, we've learned that Ron deserves credit for his predictions, and I'm sure that the adherents of GIANTCUSHION (Ginny Isn't A Naive -- oh, I forget the rest) are around here somewhere. Charlie and Bill are off overseas and don't need defending. So, it must be Molly's turn! Nicole L. wrote: > Now, I love Molly as much as the next HP fan > but I think that she is making a big mistake in > nagging Fred and George as she does. Naturally, she > wants them to succeed because she is a loving mother > but she is refusing to see them for what they are and > is refusing to listen to them when they tell her what > they want to do with their lives.... I think > Molly is showing a serious lack of judgement here. > She wants the best for them but she is going about it > in the wrong way. She wants them to conform to her > idea of what they should be and they are resisting her > with all their might, as I would if I were in their > shoes. I think Molly is an excellant mother, and I think JKR may even be presenting Molly as her own idea of the ideal mother. Compared to the various parents I have known (not just my own) I think Molly actually is pretty mild in her response to Fred and George's behavior. She doesn't physically punish them or try to throw them out of the house. She is affectionate to them. She doles out the same punishment to them as to their little brother Ron when the three of them take the family car without permission, and it's a pretty mild punishment at that. As a parent, it is Molly's *job* to try to get the twins to be responsible and work hard. If they are serious about wanting to run a magic shop, and it actually seems to have a chance of success, then yes, Molly should be supportive. But, she hasn't had a chance to do that yet, because they have just entered the work force at the end of GoF. Up through GoF, the Twins have been in school. They should be focusing on their studies, and I think it's fine that Molly tries to get them to do that. If the twins were just allowed to do whatever they wanted, Arthur and Molly would face the same criticism that the Dursleys are facing here, that they fail to set limits for their children and guide them into adulthood. In regards to the Twins calling Percy Humungous Bighead, Nicole says: > Mrs. Weasley also doesn't laugh because she's ticked that > the twins don't take her seriously when she urges them > to be more like Percy. The twins are pushing her > buttons and she doesn't like it. Think about this. > Their antics often make her laugh but she is becoming > seriously annoyed with them for not conforming to her > ideas about how they should live their lives. She is > too angry with them to laugh at them as she has in the > past. I think Molly doesn't want to laugh at *Percy* here. She doesn't like the idea that a child of hers is being made fun of. She laughs in GoF when the Twins tease *her*, though. (This is when they say how guilty she'll feel if she gives them a hard time about the Wizard Wheezes and they get killed the next day.) I don't see her as angry at the Twins. Nicole also said: > [The Twins] are simply misguided from time to time, unlike Draco and > Snape, who are both mean just for the sake of being mean. What??? Snape is mean just for the sake of being mean? First of all, this seems to imply that Snape is mean to begin with, and it's obvious that, while he might be a bit rough around the edges, underneath it all Snape is actually a sweet, kind --- oh, what's that you say? It's still Defend the Weasleys Week? Defend Snape Week isn't until *next* week? Oops, sorry. -- Judy, who must agree with Nicole's assessment of Cho as boring, because she misread the subject heading "Cho is Ever-So-Evil" as "Cho is Ever So So-So" From eloiseherisson at aol.com Tue Aug 27 07:03:43 2002 From: eloiseherisson at aol.com (eloiseherisson at aol.com) Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 03:03:43 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Portkeys and Floo Network Message-ID: <195.c2368db.2a9c7e4f@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 43209 Vera Selkie: > I think it's likely that a muggle *could* be transported by a portkey, > but only in the direct physical presence of (i.e., touching) someone > with the talent to invoke it. > I snipped your other arguments about Portkeys, which point out some big problems with the system (although I think these are still problems, whether or not Muggles can be transported by them). There seem to be different types of Portkeys and I think this is critical to the question. The Triwizard Cup seems to have been transfigured so that the *first person who touched it* would activate it (and we know that the situation was engineered, so that Harry would be that person). The Portkey that is used to transport the party from Stoatshead Hill, however, seems to have been *time* sensitive. The party had to be there by a specific time and it is announced on their arrival as the 'seven past five from Stoatshead Hill'. Now *had* a Muggle happened to pick it up at seven minutes past five, I have no doubt in my own mind that they *would* have been transported by it (and dealt with by MOM officials at the other end) and it certainly could have caused great difficulty for the wizard party if any Muggles had been hanging around at the time. But presumably that's why the location and timing are chosen: to make that event extremely unlikely. The return journey Portkeys seem to have been customised on the spot. Presumably (notwithstanding the rush to get away) they would have been anyway, as no-one knew when the match would end, meaning Portkey departure times couldn't be scheduled in advance. ................. Vera Selkie again: >I was also under the impression (please correct me if I'm wrong) that >Floo Powder is used for travel between fireplaces. Not certain if >both fires (sending and receiving) need to actually be lit, although >every one I can remember has been. Yes, the Floo network works between fireplaces. It seems that the fireplace of origination has to be lit, but that the destination one doesn't have to be: the Weasleys get to the Dursleys' blocked in one, but Arthur has to light a magical fire before they can return. He himself had to apparate back, after repairing the damage. Eloise [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From eloiseherisson at aol.com Tue Aug 27 07:15:48 2002 From: eloiseherisson at aol.com (eloiseherisson at aol.com) Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 03:15:48 EDT Subject: MAGIC DISHWASHER: A dumb question Message-ID: <12f.168c36e7.2a9c8124@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 43210 I'm sure that this has been covered, somewhere in the vast collection of posts that is the MAGIC DISHWASHER, but indulge me, please. (Or at least point me to the relevant post!) Thinking about Portkeys just then made me wonder... What part of the plan covered the possibility of Cedric (or one of the other Champions) and not Harry touching the Triwizard Cup? Or was Crouch/Moody just too arrogant to consider the possibility that he couldn't guarantee Harry getting there first? It very nearly happened, didn't it? If Cedric had been less noble about the whole thing, he alone would have been transported to the Graveyard. What then? Eloise From Arcum_Dagsson at celticwind.zzn.com Tue Aug 27 08:03:18 2002 From: Arcum_Dagsson at celticwind.zzn.com (arcum42) Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 08:03:18 -0000 Subject: Death Eaters and their chidlren (was Nott's kid) In-Reply-To: <018701c24d5e$beb6a2a0$1b9dcdd1@istu757> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43211 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Richelle Votaw" wrote: > "karinberquist" writes: > Suppose *all* the DE's had babies the same year--being the same year > Harry was born, which is interesting. Does Snape have a child > somewhere? Hmm. > Can't see that. Oh, I could see it. A lot of his nastiness I see as having acrued over time. It could be good for a few bangs, too. Suppose Snape had a child who died as a direct result of DE activities? That could easily have been what pushed him over to Dumbledores court. If we wanted to go even further out there, what if Snape had an affair with Lily, and she was pregnant with *his* child at the time she died? That way, with Harry he gets not only the memories of James, but the reminders of the son he could have had... Not likely as far as with Lily goes, but I do like the idea of Snapes son who died being the catalyst for his change of heart, though.... --Arcum From jferer at yahoo.com Tue Aug 27 08:22:11 2002 From: jferer at yahoo.com (jferer) Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 08:22:11 -0000 Subject: Fred and George: The Bullies You Do Know In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43212 Cindy:"I think the twins are Bullies, and I think their flaws give them depth..." "Why claim that some flaws are unimportant and some harm the character causes is to be dismissed because the character is supposed to be a flat "Toonish" cariacature? I guess the most that can be said is that some readers look for and appreciate richness and depth in characters, even if the depth comes from character flaws, and some readers are uncomfortable with that." JKR is a genius at giving us characters who are not plaster saints, characters who are complex; and I appreciate them very much. That doesn't alter the fact Fred and George aren't bullies. Have you ever met a real bully? someone who is 'A person who is habitually cruel or overbearing, especially to smaller or weaker people?' The kind that beat kids for their lunch money, steal their clothes off their backs, and stick smaller kids' heads into unflushed toilets? Fred and George are not cruel. If you mean to cite the Canary Creams incident with Neville, it was not cruel, since it didn't hurt Neville and wasn't meant to. And it wasn't overbearing, especially since everybody there knew the twins were up to something. The Ton Tongue Toffee incident wasn't that, either. The twins were instruments of their own kind of justice against a true bully. Comparing the twins to Dudley, a stone Bully, shows better than anything how they are not what Dudley is. What the twins are is Tough. They play Beater. They walk (literally) on Bullies they just zapped (for good reason, IMHO), and are willing to stand up to a government Minister. They act the same towards everyone, not just those weaker than themselves. They are not sadistic or cruel, however. They must have gotten a gene from some ancestor who lived in Brooklyn. If you think that's a flaw, then it is, but it's a flaw that will serve the twins well in later life, especially as maturity and judgement temper their impulses. From drednort at alphalink.com.au Tue Aug 27 09:19:44 2002 From: drednort at alphalink.com.au (Shaun Hately) Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 19:19:44 +1000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Fred and George: The Bullies You Do Know In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3D6BD0D0.28940.1CACED3@localhost> No: HPFGUIDX 43213 Cindy wrote: > My guess is that the reason we don't label someone a bully the very > first time they victimize a weaker person is because of Real World > proof problems. If there's a scuffle on the playground, perhaps you > can't easily be sure who is the perpetrator or even whether one > individual is necessarily weaker. It takes a number of observations > to be sure that you're seeing bullying behavior and not something > else, perhaps. Fair enough. Well, no - or rather, not necessarily (-8 As I've said earlier, this is something I am involved in, and I'd like to address this 'one bite of the apple' thing - only briefly, because if I go into too much detail, I will veer even more wildly away from canon than you feared (though I am happy to discuss this on OT-Chatter, if anyone wants to). Briefly though, just because some definitions of bullying (in the work I do, we don't use Olweus that much - we regard it primarily as a definition for academic discussion, rather than for practical use) don't regard something as bullying *unless* it has occurred multiple times, doesn't mean bullies get a free bite of the apple. To use Fred and George as an example, while the hissing of the Slytherin boy might not get them labelled as bullies, that doesn't mean it's be regarded as appropriate. Just because a single incident isn't labelled as bullying, doesn't mean it wouldn't be regarded as something that needed to be dealt with. The reason behind viewing things in this way, behind making those distinctions, is that dealing with bullying is difficult, and many of the actions that are needed to deal with bullies, have the potential for significant negative impacts on the person they ar used with. They may be appropriate when dealing with a bully - but counterproductive and inappropriate when dealing with somebody who has committed only one offence. That doesn't mean they have to get away with it - it may still have to be dealt with - but it will probably be better dealt with differently. Cindy: > So then. Here's my question: In analyzing the text, is it really > possible to use Real World definitions of bullying that require the > observance of a *pattern* of bullying behavior? Or, given that we > have no reason to question Harry's perceptions of the circumstances > of the alleged bullying behavior, should we dump the requirement > that bullying requires more than one occurrence? Should we adjust > our definition of bullying to account for the point of view > limitations in the text, given that we are limited only to what > Harry is positioned to observe? Well, not all definitions of bullying require a pattern to be observed - the one we use in my work doesn't for example - partly because of the point of view problem - teachers only have a limited POV as well, and if you require a pattern to be observed before you deal with it as bullying, clever bullies may never let you see enough. The fact is, if I was viewing Fred and George as a casefile, and all I had knowledge of, were the incidents described in the books, I would classify them as bullies (probably with a note that that classification is based on limited information, and should be viewed as subject to change if more infomation became available - there's not enough there to say they are *definite* bullies, in my opinion, but it is likely.) They don't seem to be particularly bad cases (as I said earlier, they seem to fall into the 'non-malicious' category) but in many ways, you want to catch them *before* they become bad cases - because that can make it easier to deal with them, without needing to resort to draconian, make-or-break measures. I'm not a PC type of person - I often upset people within the anti-bullying committees I work on, because I don't subscribe to the dominant politically correct views. What I am is someone who regards bullying in any form as a blight that needs to be removed from schools whenever possible. I don't expect the HP books to be PC - somebody in the thread seemed to me to link viewing Fred and George as bullies, to wanting a PC school - not the case at all, for me. I want the bullies there - if they don't exist in a school story, it a sign of unreality in my opinion. And I like the presence of bullies who aren't as obvious as most - the Flashman/Gripper/Draco type, the obvious ones - are everywhere, I think people need the subtle ones. Bear in mind, also, that most modern definitions of bullying are part of ideas that regard bullies as people who need help (that doesn't make them innocent, it doesn't mean they don't deserve to face justice - hey, I believe bullies are the best argument for corporal punishment available), so labelling Fred and George as bullies under those definitions isn't necessarily a slam of who they are. A lot of people regard bullies as some form of pond-scum - and may be upset to see Fred and George labelled in that way. And some are (IMHO). But when using these modern definitions, it might help to realise they often aren't intended to be that severe. JKR may not have intended Fred and George to appear as bullies - and certainly, my viewpoint on it could be wrong. But bullies or not, I like the fact that fairly minor characters *can* have that level of complexity - whether deliberate or because I read too much into it, it makes the books and the characters seem more real. Yours Without Wax, Dreadnought Shaun Hately |webpage: http://www.alphalink.com.au/~drednort/thelab.html (ISTJ) |email: drednort at alphalink.com.au | ICQ: 6898200 "You know the very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. They don't alter their views to fit the facts. They alter the facts to fit the views. Which can be uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that need altering." The Doctor - Doctor Who: The Face of Evil | Where am I: Frankston, Victoria, Australia From uncmark at yahoo.com Tue Aug 27 09:21:15 2002 From: uncmark at yahoo.com (uncmark) Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 09:21:15 -0000 Subject: Molly Weasley's Faulty Memory Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43214 Help me out if this was discussed before. I was rereading GofF and Molly's remebrance of her Hogwart's days (right before the third task) Molly noticed the Whomping Willow and mentions it was planted after her time (which would make her older then Harry's parents). She also says that the Groundskeeper was Ogg. Is this different then Hagrid's position of Keeper of the Keys and Grounds? Hagrid was expelled and became groundskeeper about 50 years before Harry's Time (placed at 1943 by the Harry Potter Lexicon) So who was Ogg and when did Molly and Arthur attend Hogwarts? Uncmark From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Tue Aug 27 09:42:13 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 09:42:13 -0000 Subject: MAGIC DISHWASHER including: A Dumb question? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43215 Greg, asking about Voldemort's plans, wrote: > Why, exactly, can he not kill the boy? He has the boy, tied to a > gravestone, in the middle of a cemetary, miles from protection. He > even has a knife Wormtail had for the ceremony to finish him off. > If Voldemort doesn't think Avada Kedvara will work, I think an > awfully bad way to find out for sure would be to do the same thing > that left him w/o a body for 13 years. If he isn't sure that > magical methods will kill the kid, he's going to have to do it > eventually, why not do it now before he fully grows into his body. > Let's not forget that Voldemort considered a 1 year old Harry Potter > a big enough threat to get himself killed. Why would a 14 year old > Harry Potter not be an infinately bigger threat, and if he plans on > allowing him to escape, a 20 year old Harry Potter an even bigger > threat than that? You're confusing the issue. It is obvious that Voldemort *wants* to kill the kid but, as I've endlessly reapeated by now, he's *NOT SURE* he can do so. Harry was able to thwart him when he was one. Later, when he was eleven, he did so again. Before that, Harry had survived a troll and cunning traps by the teachers. After, he faces and wins against a basilisk, a giant spider, 100 dementors, a dragon, etc. If I was Voldemort, I wouldn't be sure I could kill the brat. It's not a matter of thinking "he's been lucky", because that would make him fear the encounter even more. Harry is *difficult* to kill. Voldemort knows that, and thus he plans accordingly. He might have tried using the knife after the failed AK, but he had no chance. All MAGIC DISHWASHER says is that Voldemort had included in his plans the very real posibility of Harry's escape, and thus he had made it a win/win situation: if he kills the brat, great. If not, he misinforms Dumbledore. I, on a previous post, said: > > And the fact is that events prove him > > right: he is unable to kill the boy in the graveyard, but even if > > he *had* killed him, his plans would've still have included the > > posibility of escapaing. Voldemort cannot see the future. He plans, > > and prepares contingency plans. Which means, in this case, that he > > planned to resurrect and then, once resurrected he planned *trying* > > to kill the brat, but also feed him false information *just in > > case* Harry happened to scape again. Greg Again: > Here's my other big problem w/ this whole idea. I'm coming up w/ a > big blank on any important information Harry brought back. Names, > but Dumbledore (via Snape) probably knew about all of them before, > and unless Voldemort wants to get rid of his followers I can't > really imagine why he'd be jumping up & down to pass this > information along to Dumbledore. And the other thing was his plans > to recruit the Dementors & Giants, which, to my recollection, > Dumbledore assumed Voldemort would do w/o ever having to ask Harry. *PLEASE* read post 40044 For the long list of all the possible misinformation Voldemort gave Dumbledore through Harry. I'm not going to repeat it here. My rambles are long enough on their own without adding old posts under me. If, for some reason, you're unable or unwilling to go into webview long enough to read those posts, mail me and I'll send them to you, but these posts are long enough on their own without adding 5000 words essays under them. Greg still: > If Voldemort had started to rant and rave about every witch & wizard > he was planning on killing & in what order, that'd be one thing. > But the information that Harry brought back, just does not seem > anywhere near as important as his death would be. Probably not, no, but *if he's unable to kill Harry*, which seems a very valid possibility, it's better than simply letting Harry go, and having him draw his own conclusions. Besides, are you sure he called all his DE? Notice that all the names are of famous DEs, that Harry might have heard from other sources, as Fudge points out: he isn't telling Dumbledore anything he didn't already know by naming them, but keeps to himself the names of a few other DE, and it's altoghether possible that he didn't call *all* his DEs to the graveyard (he could've spoken privately to some of them and especifically tell them to disregard the tattoo call). Greg a last time: > (I remember the post about there being more to the shack scene that > was just on the surface, but a brief summary of the "Magical > Dishwaser" sure would be nice.) > > Greg You've got a nice summary I wrote myself on the first half of MAGIC DISHWASHER in post 39854. It's long, but that's only to be expected: the thread is 100+ posts long. I might do a resume of the second part, especially now that it has been reborn, but don't expect it to be brief, either. For one thing, it takes me about 100 words just to clear my throat, and for second, I always try to be thorough, which normally oposes brievety.Also, I'd have to wait for the creator of the theory to give me her views on some of the issues. Eloise wrote: > I'm sure that this has been covered, somewhere in the vast collection > of posts that is the MAGIC DISHWASHER, but indulge me, please. (Or at > least point me to the relevant post!) Why, of course, Eloise, that's what I'm here for! I'm the official guide to MAGIC DISHWASHER, and I understand that from the outside it may seem to big to know fully. > Thinking about Portkeys just then made me wonder... > What part of the plan covered the possibility of Cedric (or one of > the other Champions) and not Harry touching the Triwizard Cup? Or was > Crouch/Moody just too arrogant to consider the possibility that he > couldn't guarantee Harry getting there first? > > It very nearly happened, didn't it? If Cedric had been less noble > about the whole thing, he alone would have been transported to the > Graveyard. What then? > > Eloise The part of the plan that covered Cedric was the "Croch!Moody will help Harry win the tournent". We don't really know what Crouch was thinking when he was seing that situation, but I'd say that if Cedric had decided to grab the cup on his own, he would summarly be put down with a good hex. I'd go for an Imperius, so it wouldn't look too strange. For all we know, that imperius *was* in place, although I doubt it (mainly because Crouch is no friend of the Imperius curse). Maybe Crouch know Cedric well enough to know that, as a Hufflepuff, he would put his debts before his desires and thus didn't do anything about it, expecting that foreviewable "lets make it a draw" idea. Hope that helps, Grey Wolf ----------------- For the original posts on (what later became) MAGIC DISHWASHER check messages #39662 (spying game part I), #39854 (re-cap on spying game part I) and #40044 (spying game part II). From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Tue Aug 27 09:59:34 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 09:59:34 -0000 Subject: Molly Weasley's Faulty Memory/Hermione's placement/Harry's tears In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43216 Uncmark wrote: > Help me out if this was discussed before. I was rereading GoF and > Molly's remebrance of her Hogwart's days (right before the third > task) > > Molly noticed the Whomping Willow and mentions it was planted after > her time (which would make her older then Harry's parents). She also > says that the Groundskeeper was Ogg. Is this different then Hagrid's > position of Keeper of the Keys and Grounds? > > Hagrid was expelled and became groundskeeper about 50 years before > Harry's Time (placed at 1943 by the Harry Potter Lexicon) So who was > Ogg and when did Molly and Arthur attend Hogwarts? > > Uncmark The general consessus in the list is, IIRC, that Hagrid was hired as a groundskeeper *under* Ogg's tutelage for a few years, until Ogg retired and Hagrid learned the trade. Which means that, even if Hagrid was there before Molly and Arthur, he wasn't the groundskeeper as such, only the helper to Ogg. Melody wrote: > The only other excuse I can think of is that: JKR has always said > that she wrote Hermione like herself, and that if JKR was to be > sorted, she would want to be in Gryffindor. So therefore, if A=B, B= > C, then A=C, then Hermione is in Gryffindor. Those are the only > reasons I can come up with really. Any other suggestions are greatly > welcomed by all. > Ok, that is all. Have a good day. :) > > Melody I'd like just to point out that, IIRC (which I might not), JKR has said that she'd expect to be sorted into Ravenclaw herself. Some listees have pointed out that Hermione might have been placed in Gryffindor because Ravcenclaw has nothing to make her grow (she's already a good student), but I think that she was put in Gryffindor because she asked the hat for it (just like Draco asked for Slytherin and Ron for Ravenclaw. Mike Zitzmann wrote: > I think we can safely assume that Harry is the heir to Gryffindor. I don't think that's a safe theory, Mike. I've argued against it before, and the problem with that idea is that it undermines the enire "we are what we choose and not what our blood dictates" idea in the books. Dumbledore insist heavily in the fact that what really is important is the choices one makes, not the blood like Voldemort and the DEs think. If Harry is NOT a heir to Gryffindor, OTOH, we have a great theme for the books: the new blood that's not the heir of anything defeats the old blood heir of an ancient wizard family. You may have noticed, however, that this argument is based in metathinking, so it's not one of my favourites. Also, proof seems to be piling for the "heir of Gryffindor" theory, but I thought I should point out that Harry's ascendency is not so cut-and-dry as it may seem. Hope that helps, Grey Wolf From abigailnus at yahoo.com Tue Aug 27 10:03:30 2002 From: abigailnus at yahoo.com (abigailnus) Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 10:03:30 -0000 Subject: Fred and George: The Bullies You Do Know In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43217 Cindy took offense when I wrote: > >I'm beginning to find the "are they or aren't they" part of this > >debate a bit tedious, especially > > since, Elkins' definitions notwithstanding, it seems that everyone > >has a different idea of what constitutes bullying, and this idea is > >very strongly coloured by personal experience. I remain > >convinced that *it just doesn't matter* whether F&G are bullies, > >because we were never meant to analyze their actions > > as deeply as we do. And respnded with: > > We were never meant to analyze the actions of the twins in this > fashion? The discussion is getting "tedious" because people have > different ideas about what constitutes bullying? No, the discussion is getting tedious because after nearly a week and almost 70 messages, it is still mostly one group going "they are too bullies and here's the canon for why" and the other group going "no they aren't and here's the canon for why". Now at first this was interesting because both groups make good arguments, but now the canon is beginning to repeat itself. Plus, it's becoming clear that both groups are firmly entrenched in their disparate views of what the canon means, partly because everyone has their own personal definition of bully. I think this is the point where we should just agree to disagree. I truly am sorry if I offended anyone, but I find Dicentra's ideas infinitely more interesting then a canon fight. Think of my message as a not-so-subtle attempt to steer the conversation. Whether or not it works depends entirely on the group. She also said: > As for whether we are "meant" to analyze the twins' actions . . . > well, why wouldn't we be? If there are some clues in the text that > indicate that a character is a bully (or a thief, or a racist, or an > elitist or what have you), how can we be certain the author meant > for us to blow past these clues? It strikes me as quite reasonable > that JKR may have added the "bullying" component of the twins' > characterization precisely to give them depth and dimension. True, > different readers might react to some of the twins' actions in > different ways. Which, IMHO, simply means that JKR *succeeded* in > making the twins multi-dimensional, regardless of whether that was > her original goal. I expanded on the idea that we are not meant to analyze the twins in my original response to Elkins' message, and then defended it to Jenny from Ravenclaw who offered a similar objection (#43032 and #43064, if you're interested), so I'm not going to repeat myself here. However, I think Cindy inadvertently defended my position when she wrote, in respnonse to Suzanne: >At the same time, I think it would deny the words on the page to some extent to claim that Snape is not a Mean Man. Or that Sirius is not a Hot-Head. So how is it different and "tedious" for someone to read the text and form the opinion that the twins are Bullies? I must say that I am struck by the reluctance to deny the flaws that the twins have, whether you think those flaws rise to the level of bullying or not. Many characters in HP have flaws, including some of my favorites, like Lupin and Moody. Why not just admit the flawed behavior and embrace the character anyway, if that is what you prefer? Why claim that some flaws are unimportant and some harm the character causes is to be dismissed because the character is supposed to be a flat "Toonish" cariacature? > Because it's an unsatisfying pursuit. Sirius, Lupin, Snape truly have depth, and their flaws do turn them into interesting characters. I don't perceive the twins as having this kind of depth, and claiming that they are bullies doesn't help to give them that depth because their allegedly bullying behaviour is never addressed by canon. They are treated as walking jokes - barely even distinguishable one from the other - and their antics are never very firmly criticised or shown as having negative effects on anyone (not yet, anyway). Without these elements, any depth we perceive in the characters has either been so completely hidden by JKR that one wonders why it was introduced in the first place, or is a subversive reading of the characters. There are some characters, like Neville, that can shoulder the burden of a subversive reading, but the twins are not nearly meaty enough for it. I'm not saying none of this will change in the future. If Fred and George develop a little more depth in coming books then it would be appropriate for them to start wondering if their pranks aren't a bit over the top, but I only have the available canon to judge by, and so far, F&G don't even merit the second dimension. Abigail From pengolodh_sc at yahoo.no Tue Aug 27 10:11:12 2002 From: pengolodh_sc at yahoo.no (pengolodh_sc) Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 10:11:12 -0000 Subject: Twins' age and when they leave Hogwarts Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43218 I hvae noticed in the recent Fred&George-debate that several refer to Fred&George as being adult, and some also have referred to them as having entered the workforce - I presume that entering the workforce means leaving Hogwarts. But this puzzles me a bit, as I am under the very distinct impression that Fred and George have not finished their Hogwarts education, and that at the end of GoF, they had only concluded their sixth year at that institution. The HP-Lexicon does seem to back me up on this. I also do not think they will just leave Hogwarts now that they have received the 1000 Galleons from Harry - if nothing else, I suspect Molly Weasley would have a thing or two to say about it, and besides, 1000 Galleons would not be able to support them and support a new business. Assuming I am right in that the twins still have one more year at Hogwarts, then I cannot support the assumption that they are adults, either. Not in the legal way, at least - few countries, if any, have people reaching age of majority before they have finished the level of school they legally must finish. That they are old enough that they should understand some things and be expected to show a given level of maturity is true, but the term adult to me implies legal adulthood, and I do not think they've come that far yet. Best regards Christian Stub? From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Tue Aug 27 10:57:42 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 10:57:42 -0000 Subject: Twins' age and when they leave Hogwarts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43219 Christian Stub? wrote: > I hvae noticed in the recent Fred&George-debate that several refer to > Fred&George as being adult, and some also have referred to them as > having entered the workforce - I presume that entering the workforce > means leaving Hogwarts. But this puzzles me a bit, as I am under the > very distinct impression that Fred and George have not finished their > Hogwarts education, and that at the end of GoF, they had only > concluded their sixth year at that institution. The HP-Lexicon does > seem to back me up on this. I also do not think they will just leave > Hogwarts now that they have received the 1000 Galleons from Harry - > if nothing else, I suspect Molly Weasley would have a thing or two to > say about it, and besides, 1000 Galleons would not be able to support > them and support a new business. You're right in almost all acounts. The twins have *not* finished Hogawarts: they'll start 7th year in book five. They won't leave Hogwarts, and the 1000 Galleons is not supposed to be their only method to start bussiness: I'd imagine that selling their trick at Hogwarts is also included in his plans. However, They *can* enter the workforce (and in fact, already have) when they started developing and mass-producing their tricks in book 4, without leaving Hogwarts. > Assuming I am right in that the twins still have one more year at > Hogwarts, then I cannot support the assumption that they are adults, > either. Not in the legal way, at least - few countries, if any, have > people reaching age of majority before they have finished the level > of school they legally must finish. That they are old enough that > they should understand some things and be expected to show a given > level of maturity is true, but the term adult to me implies legal > adulthood, and I do not think they've come that far yet. > > Best regards > Christian Stub? This is were you're wrong: canon tells us that wizards in WW come of age and are legally adults at 17. At that point, even most of them are still at Hogwarts, they're already adults who can learn to apparate, become animagi or start a business officialy. Hope that helps, Grey Wolf From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Tue Aug 27 11:05:46 2002 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (bboy_mn) Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 11:05:46 -0000 Subject: Fred and George: The PREDATORS (NOT!) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43220 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "jferer" wrote: > Cindy: > "I think the twins are Bullies, and I think their flaws > give them depth..." > > "Why claim that some flaws are unimportant and some harm the > character causes is to be dismissed because the character is > supposed to be a flat "Toonish" caricature? I guess the most > that can be said is that some readers look for and appreciate > richness and depth in characters, even if the depth comes from > character flaws, and some readers are uncomfortable with that." > jferer Comments: > JKR is a genius at giving us characters who are not plaster saints, > characters who are complex; and I appreciate them very much. That > doesn't alter the fact Fred and George aren't bullies. > > Have you ever met a real bully? someone who is 'A person who is > habitually cruel or overbearing, especially to smaller or weaker > people?' The kind that beat kids for their lunch money, steal their > clothes off their backs, and stick smaller kids' heads into > unflushed toilets? > > Fred and George are not cruel. If you mean to cite the Canary > Creams incident with Neville, it was not cruel, since it didn't > hurt Neville and wasn't meant to. And it wasn't overbearing, > especially since everybody there knew the twins were up to > something. > > The Ton Tongue Toffee incident wasn't that, either. The twins > were instruments of their own kind of justice against a true bully. > Comparing the twins to Dudley, a stone Bully, shows better than > anything how they are not what Dudley is. > > What the twins are is Tough. They play Beater. They walk (literally) > on Bullies they just zapped (for good reason, IMHO), and are willing > to stand up to a government Minister. They act the same towards > everyone, not just those weaker than themselves. They are not > sadistic or cruel, however. They must have gotten a gene from some > ancestor who lived in Brooklyn. > > If you think that's a flaw, then it is, but it's a flaw that will > serve the twins well in later life, especially as maturity and > judgment temper their impulses. jferer bboy_mn adds: Now that is about the most direct, accurate, and to the point assessment of the situation I've read so far. Bullies are mean vicious people, the seek out the weak like predators, and then they prey on them. And like predators, they are intent on doing damage and harm. Once the capture their prey, the devour them (figuratively, of course). Dudley beats the crap out of Harry and kicks him around for sport. I don't see Fred and George beating anyone up for sport. Not only does Dudley beat the crap out of Harry for sport, but he forms gangs of kids to help him chase Harry down and beat the crap out of him. I don't see Fred and George seeking people out like predators. Dudley will have someone hold a little kids arms behind their back, while Dudley beats the crap out of them. I can't see Fred and George lurking around waiting for some little kid to come by so George can hold his arms while Fred beats him up. That's just not happening. Fred and George are not vicious, they do not seek people out with the specific intent of hurting them, and I don't see then engaged in any predator like activities. I don't think their idea of fun is sticking a little kids heads in the toilet. In fact, they are more likely to beat up the guy who stuck the little kids head in the toilet. Canary Cream, Ton Tongue Toffee, trick wands, Yes; but head in the toilet, No. If Fred and George had really been mean and/or bullies, they would have found a way to beat the crap out of Dudley, not play a prank on him. They can be insensitive, they can be overbearing, and they can be intimidating, but they don't do those things with the conscious intent of oppressing other people. As far as intimidating, some younger kid may encounter Fred and George and be very intimidated. But it is not because Fred and George are trying to intimidate this person. They have not sought this kid out with the intention of intimidating him. But anyone who is big, loud, outgoing, and exuberant can be unintentionally intimidating to anyone. Once the kid finds out who Fred and George are, and see what type of people they are, and how they interact with other people; I don't think most of them will remain intimidated. They are not vicious, mean spirited, or spiteful in their intent; all of which, by the way, bullies, Draco, and Dudley are. The TTToffee incident was thought through with the typical low impulse control, short sighted mentality that most teenage boys have. They failed to look beyond the joke, beyond the TTToffee, and see the bigger picture, to see the full range of possible consequences. That's wrong, but it's not that unusual for most teenage boys. The stepping on Draco incident, you will never convince me it was an assault. It was an act of disrespect; it cause no harm, no pain, no damage, and they didn't seek Draco out for the purpose of stepping on him. If Draco had been awake, the only thing that would have been bruised would have been his already over-inflated ego. 'Kicking' Draco out of the cabinet was not an assault; again, it was an act of disrespect. They pushed him out of the compartment with their feet because he wasn't worthy of the consideration or effort of bending over and pushing him out with their hands. The kick was not, by any interpretation that I can see, a blunt force trauma kick. They push him out using their feet which is still technically a kick, but it is NOT an assaultive kick; a kick by definition only. By the way, that's is exactly what I would have done, and I'm about as far from a bully as it is possible to get. You can argue the point all you want, but the 'Fred and George are bullies' faction, will never convince me that Fred and George are intentionally vicious malicious mean spirited power-mad predators. That's my story and I'm sticking to it. bboy_mn From mdemeran at hotmail.com Tue Aug 27 12:25:59 2002 From: mdemeran at hotmail.com (Meg Demeranville) Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 07:25:59 -0500 Subject: TBAY The Missing 24 hours: the untold story Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43221 Whistling lightly, Meg skipped her way down the Theory Bay dock to her Cal 20, emblazoned FIRST MEMORY FRIEND on the stern. For having survived her first week of medical school, she obviously deserved a nice relaxing sail around Theory Bay. Casting off, she headed to the Safe House where she knew she could always pick up Grey Wolf to crew for her. Arriving at the Safe House, Meg blew on her wolf whistle to call to Grey Wolf. Surprisingly, out of the Safe House what "Who are you?" Meg asked, getting over her shock. "It's me, Grey Wolf," the man replied. "Cindy upset me this morning the way she treated you, and well, I transformed." "Treated me? I haven't spoken to her in days. I have been stuck in the anatomy labs since last week. Grey, you know this, have you been in the sun too long?" Meg asked incredulous at the story being told to her. "But Meg, your boat, it's been sailing all over the bay. And then this morning there was a whole huge confrontation with Cindy on the boat. She told you to go join up with the LOLLIPOPS." "Perish the thought Grey Wolf, this is my vessel and I am not about to jump ship." Meg was quiet for a second. "Wait a second, I know what was going on. I left my mind here in Theory Bay all week while I was at school. Cindy ran into my good twin, so to speak. Don't worry about it. Let me see what she said" Grey Wolf opened up a small portable player and handed it to Meg. Meg watched as Cindy confronted and scared her good twin. Grey Wolf watched as Meg gets angrier. "She doubts my boats BANG? Can she not read? It has lots of Bang. It had Bang before Bang was cool!" Grey Wolf flinched as Meg yelled. "Calm down now Meg, you haven't seen the rest of it." Grey Wolf started the player again and showed Meg the confrontation between Cindy and himself. "Ok, thank you Grey Wolf," Meg stated as she began to calm down. "But next time, could you bite first and ask questions later? It really would help matters. But anyway, I think I found another can(n)on for our little boat. Why don't we call over Cindy and let her mess with the evil twin?" "Meg, are you sure? And where is your good twin, by the way?" Grey Wolf asked. "Yes I am sure, and she is where all good twins should be. Stuck in the class." Meg replied giggling. Meg reached into her the pockets of her backpack. Pulling out a scalpel, she pointed it at the Big Bang destroyer. "Meg, I hate to interrupt, but that's not a wand." Grey Wolf stared at Meg as he tried to figure out what she was up to. "Yes it is Grey, it's just transfigured for class. One less thing I need to carry." Meg pointed the scalpel/wand at the Big Bang destroyer again and steeled her blue eyes on Cindy lounging in her Captain's chair. Muttering something that sounded vaguely like a mnemonic for anatomy, her scalpel emitted a bright blue light from the blade. Apparently satisfied, Meg pocketed the scalpel. "Now what Meg?" "Just watch." Grey Wolf watched as Cindy rises from her Captain's chair on the Big Bang destroyer and bounces across the water. Cindy finally landed with a thud onto the Cal 20, dripping wet and obviously angered. "What is the meaning of this?" Cindy sputtered, still spitting seawater. "It's time we clarified a few things. I hear you messed with my good twin." Meg stated, glaring down at the Captain. "Well you see, it was a misunderstanding. And besides, Grey Wolf and I already talked." Cindy looked around nervously. She was clearly uncomfortable with Grey Wolf in such close proximity again. "No one gets to mess with my good twin. And besides, I thought you might want to be at the unveiling of my new can(n)on. It has plenty of bang to it. Even by your standards, Cindy. I would hate to have you miss such an important event." Meg's voice dripped with sarcasm as she uttered the last sentence. "You see, Cindy, the first time Molly has Harry back in her kitchen she reassumes the mothering role. It's right here in CoS (US Hardback): "They were starving him, Mum!" said George. "And you!" said Mrs. Weasley, but it was with a slightly softened expression that she started cutting Harry bread and buttering it for him. (35) "You see, she immediately assumes a very mothering attitude toward Harry. There are several examples, but I won't quote you an exhaustive list. Besides, I need to get back to studying in a moment. But honestly Cindy, what mother butters an eleven year old's bread? She still remembers him as a toddler, who needed his bread buttered. She remembers that screaming toddler that she took care of in his darkest moment. That is what drives her in GoF. She is having flashbacks, for lack of a better word, of Harry as a small child, one that she comforted by holding and keeping the other children away from, with the minor exception of Ron. You see, this makes the whole situation bangy. Molly has anxiety when Harry is in trouble. Some might speculate that his loss is mirrored in the Weasley family loss of a child. Harry was a chance for her to regain that loss." Meg pulled out her scalpel again and watched as Cindy flinched. "What? Do you think I would risk getting blood on this boat? Power has addled your brain." Meg conjures up a can(n)on that has a scalpel on the top of it. "The scalpel is for the fact that I thought about this while sitting in the anatomy lab. Now do you concede the point, Cindy?" "Never. I stand by my idea that the Longbottom's took care of him," Cindy spat back, her eyes flashing. "Now Cindy, sweetheart, darling," Grey Wolf snickered at the sarcasm in Meg's voice, "surely you understand that Frank Longbottom would be a horrible choice to stick Harry with for that day? He was an auror. He was busy trying to round up all of these DEs and handle the Black/Pettigrew incident. And Mrs. Longbottom? She was dealing with Neville. And only Neville. Why would Dumbledore put Harry in the hands of someone who works so closely with people in the dark arts? People who had permission to use the Unforgivable Curses? That would put Harry in horrible danger. The Weasleys were a safe choice. Besides, there were lots of kids there to distract Harry with. You see, it all makes logical sense." Cindy started to nod her head in agreement. "You might, and I do mean might, have a point." "Okay, I will accept that. But stay away from my boat" Having said that, Meg pointed her scalpel at Cindy, muttered a few words and sent Cindy back to the Big Bang destroyer with a pop. "Couldn't you have summoned her like that?" Grey Wolf asked. "Yeah, but it wouldn't have been nearly as much fun," Meg said with a smirk. "Ok, I need to get back to studying. Will you guard the boat?" "Sure thing" said Grey Wolf "Coming about, duck Grey Wolf" Meg yelled into the wind as she pointed the tiller back toward the Theory Bay Marina. Reaching the marina, Meg and Grey Wolf tied up the boat and secured it. Grey Wolf clamored off and watched as Meg lugged her backpack off the boat. Noticing Grey's stare, Meg replied to his unasked question "The books are huge in medical school. And there are a lot of them. Now back to studying." With that, she pulled out a large purple card marked 'med school'. "Instant port-a-key, just tap here. See you soon, Grey Wolf." With that, she tapped the card in the appropriate spot and disappeared back into the labs. -- Meg (who really must get back to studying) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From meboriqua at aol.com Tue Aug 27 12:43:34 2002 From: meboriqua at aol.com (jenny_ravenclaw) Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 12:43:34 -0000 Subject: Fat Dudley, and Obesity in Canon In-Reply-To: <01C24D04.6ACAAAB0.judyshapiro@earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43222 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Judy Shapiro wrote: > Dudley *could* have a gland problem. Vernon and his sister Marge are also described as being overweight, and the inference I have always made is that Dudley inherited the genes for obesity from his father. My theory is that Vernon, Marge, and Dudley are fat because there are genes for obesity on the Dursley side of the family; Petunia, Harry, and Lily are thin or normal weight because there are no genes for obesity on the Evans side of the family. (Or on the Potter side, either, in Harry's case.)> Dudley could have a gland problem, but based on the way JKR presents hsi character, I highly doubt it. He is greedy with things other than food: toys, attention. JKR to me seems to have made a point of making Dudley fat as a symbol of his greed constantly being fulfilled specifically by his parents. Unfortunately, she casts a negative light on overweight people by making Marge and Vernon, two extremely nasty people, fat as well. These are not people who show restraint. Marge cannot stop herself from criticizing Harry and Vernon makes no effort to control his temper, both at work or at home. I suppose JKR could have found other ways to show Dudley's unpleasant disposition, but I believe she used his weight to show how extreme the Dursley family is. Perhaps it wasn't the best way to exploit weight, but there you go. Also, considering how Vernon and Petunia simply give everything to Dudley, from food to toys, I'd say they are enablers, and enablers definitely fall into a category of abuse. They have gone beyond bad parenting and created a kid who will not have an easy life, and if they can't see that, I question the love they have for their son, not his glands. -jenny from ravenclaw ************************ From lilac_bearry at yahoo.com Tue Aug 27 12:45:13 2002 From: lilac_bearry at yahoo.com (Lilac) Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 05:45:13 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Jealous!Twins getting attention (was Message-ID: <20020827124513.63150.qmail@web40308.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 43223 Nicole (I apologize for all the snippage, excellent post btw): <<>>> Me: I agree with you here, Nicole. There's one more point to the teasing of Percy and others that I would like to add that I don't think people have mentioned: That Fred and George are jealous of Percy and his success. But how they deal with it, and how they want to be noticed, is by teasing him. Isn't that human nature? We'll tease or put people down whom we percieve as better than us, just to make ourselves feel better than them. No, this isn't the most mature way to deal with this, but I think we'll all concur that the twins are not saints. An example of the Jealous!Twins is when the twins are in trouble with Molly (no, really?) and she mentions something about Percy (I think how many OWLS or something like that) and one of them mutters, "Perfect Percy." and Molly counters somthing like "You would do good to take a leaf out of Percy's book!" (in my words). This sounded like jealousy to me, even though he masks it with a put down of "Perfect" (sarcasm). If I didn't know any better, I would say that the twins are jealous of the attention Percy gets from his mom for being so good in school and following the rules. Not that they would ever admit it, of course. Being a teacher (I'm on "Mommy Sebatical"), I was taught that most misbehavior of children in the classroom is motivated by wanting attention. When a child wants attention, he/she will get it any way they can, with good behavior or bad behavior. Most of the time, it is the bad behavior that comes out. Maybe the twin's "bad behavior" has been reinforced by attention (albeit negative attention, but attention nonetheless) from Molly and others that they hardly know how to get attention for being "good". No, I'm not saying it's all Molly's fault, but there is some fault there in how she does reinforce their behavior. It's kind of a vicious cycle, but I'm not sure if the chicken or the egg came first in this one: I don't know if their prankster behavior was a part of them when they were born, or if it was reinforced with attention as they noticed it was a great way to get attention. I will give Molly credit where credit is due. On the "Humongous Big Head" comment about Percy made by the twins, where everyone else snorted into their pudding, Molly pointedly chose to ignore this, thereby not reinforcing the behavior. I don't know if this is making sense, but I see a motivation on the twin's part to be noticed, and how they have discovered is the best way for them to get attention is with negative (teasing, put-downs, practical jokes) behavior. Richelle, fellow first grade teacher, does any of this ring true to you? Lilac (Catch 'em being good *before* they have a chance to be bad was my classroom motto) ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~ "Tut, tut --- hardly any of you remembered that my favorite color is *lilac*. I say so in Year with the Yeti." --Gilderoy Lockhart, COS --------------------------------- Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From meboriqua at aol.com Tue Aug 27 13:25:03 2002 From: meboriqua at aol.com (jenny_ravenclaw) Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 13:25:03 -0000 Subject: Fred and George: The PREDATORS (NOT!) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43224 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "bboy_mn" wrote: >If Fred and George had really been mean and/or bullies, they would have found a way to beat the crap out of Dudley, not play a prank on him.> I feel that Fred and George did beat the crap out of Dudley though. They just used magic to do so. They planned and executed an attack on a person they saw as weak, using his weakness (food) to get him. Dudley has done nothing to Fred and George, and, in fact, has not touched Harry in quite a while. If Fred and George witnessed Dudley punching Harry, then their actions would have been justified. In the situation that was actually played out, I can't see any real justification for what they did. People keep saying that the twins aren't bullies but that they can be, as bboy said: >insensitive, they can be overbearing, and they can be intimidating> I had a student who, in the context of the discussion about the twins, reminds me quite a bit of them. He was often the class clown, loud, sometimes rude, loved to get the best of others, and so on. Many of his peers thought he was funny, but others were uncomfortable around him. As a teacher, he was a student I loathed having in my class, even though we got along quite well and he liked me. He detracted from class discussion and as his Advisor, I found that I was spending too much time tracking him down while he was wandering in the halls and disrupting other classes where he didn't belong. It was annoying. Maybe it's hard for me to be objective about Fred and George because I do look at them from a teacher's point of view, but I would not tolerate their prank pulling in my classroom. That doesn't mean I wouldn't think they are funny and charismatic kids. A mean streak is a mean streak, though, and Fred and George sure have one. I don't think anyone can deny that. >The kick was not, by any interpretation that I can see, a blunt force trauma kick. They push him out using their feet which is still technically a kick, but it is NOT an assaultive kick; a kick by definition only. By the way, that's is exactly what I would have done, and I'm about as far from a bully as it is possible to get.> A kick is an assault no matter how you slice it, dice it, dress it and season it. Once again, if I witnessed a student kick another student who was lying on the ground, unconscious, the kicker would be expelled from my school's program within the next hour, regardless of what the unconscious student had also done. Would the unconscious student also be punished in some way? Most likely, but we have to place responsibility on the ones responsible. If you kick, hit, push, slap, punch, bite, or spit at someone else, no matter WHAT that person has said to you, you and only you are responsible for that action. No one can make you do something (well, under Imperius, maybe). I'm not saying I don't understand why people want to slap others from time to time, but if you reach out your hand - or foot - towards someone else, you are responsible for that. Fred and George are responsible for their actions. I cannot blame Dudley, or Draco, in the scenarios we've been discussing. --jenny from ravenclaw, who, as usual, agrees with Cindy about her Hagrid comment ************ From cindysphynx at comcast.net Tue Aug 27 13:29:54 2002 From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (cindysphynx) Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 13:29:54 -0000 Subject: Steering Tedious Conversations (WAS Fred and George: The Bullies You Do Know In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43225 Abigail wrote: > No, the discussion is getting tedious because after nearly a week >and almost 70 messages, it is still mostly one group going "they >are too bullies and here's the canon for why" and the other group >going "no they aren't and here's the canon for why". Well, I guess that is one way to view the exchange on this particular thread. Personally, I have learned quite a lot from the thread, and I think a number of excellent and novel points have been made, including some I have never seen discussed on this board before (for instance, the idea that the twins hissed Malcolm because the mascot of Slytherine is a snake). So I don't perceive the discussion as tedious. Not at all. There is something that does trouble me about Abigail's two most recent posts on this thread, though. It is related to this idea, as Abigail put it: >Think of my message as a not-so-subtle attempt to steer the >conversation. Whether or not it works depends entirely on the >group. Hmmm. How to put this? I personally don't think it is especially kind or appropriate for any of us to attempt to "steer" a thread in this way -- by declaring a discussion that no longer interests him or her as "tedious." See, I view this list as akin to a huge cocktail party. People are clustered in parts of a large room, discussing whatever is of interest to them. Some conversations are small. Others are large, involving scores of people. Some interactions are genteel, some get a little hot. Some people join conversations late, some leave early, and some stick around for the whole thing. When party guests stumble across a conversation that doesn't interest them, they quietly slip off, freshen their drinks, and join or start another conversation that is more to their liking. Usually, conversations at the party taper off and end because people wander away once they lose interest or can think of nothing to add. What cocktail party participants don't do, however, is attempt to steer a conversation or shut down a conversation if they think it has gone on long enough, perhaps by declaring the conversation tedious once they have grown weary of it. Personally, I always assume I'd be seriously getting in the way of other people's fun if I entered certain types of discussions on the list that I think have been done to death and tried to steer them toward something I found more satisfying. Stating one's opinion on the merits of the issue being discussed is always welcome, of course. But if a party guest enters a conversation to declare it not to their personal tastes for whatever reason, the remarks can sound a great deal like heckling to my ears. I asked: >Why claim that some flaws are unimportant and some harm > the character causes is to be dismissed because the character is > supposed to be a flat "Toonish" cariacature? Abigail replied: > Because it's an unsatisfying pursuit. Sirius, Lupin, Snape truly >have depth, and their flaws do turn them into interesting >characters. I don't perceive the twins as having this kind of >depth, and claiming that they are bullies doesn't help to give them >that depth because their allegedly bullying behaviour is never >addressed by canon. Well, OK. If it is unsatisfying to you personally, then you're right that this particular discussion probably won't please you as much as some other discussions might. But this discussion hasn't been unsatisfying for me at all. In fact, I would disagree with the statement that the twins "allegedly bullying behavior is never addressed by canon." After all, people *are* citing canon for their interpretation that the twins are or are not bullies, as you mentioned earlier as evidence that the conversation was tedious. So the subject of the twins' bullying *is* addressed in canon, although it is not as crystal clear as the explicit description of Dudley's actions as bullying. Indeed, I have seen very few threads discussing whether Dudley is or is not a bully. This aspect of Dudley's character is established explicitly, so there is little to discuss with respect to whether Dudley is a bully. IMHO, the reason that the issue of whether the twins are bullies has generate so many messages is because there *is* ambiguity in the text. Reasonable minds can and do differ on the point. So from where I sit, the discussion on this thread has been quite satisfying because the fact that an idea is not hammered home explictly in the text does not make it unworthy of discussion among list members. In fact, the ambiguity may make the discussion *more* satisfying for me, not less satisfying. Now, some people (perhaps even the majority of people) who have commented don't view the twins as bullies. That's fine. But that doesn't mean the conversation itself is irrelevant or that the topic is the figment of the imaginations of the list members discussing it. If canon provide no basis at all for suspecting that the twins might be bullies, then this entire conversation would be off-topic and couldn't take place on this list, IMHO. Now, I take your point that you find the "Toon analysis" more to your liking. Personally, I'm not entirely persuaded that the Toon analysis is compelling, and I might or might not find time to post on that thread about my own take on it. But I won't try to shut down that conversation or steer it toward something else, because that might get in the way of the people who have gathered to explore that idea and who *are* enjoying it. Cindy From jbryson at richmond.infi.net Tue Aug 27 13:36:28 2002 From: jbryson at richmond.infi.net (tex23236) Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 13:36:28 -0000 Subject: Arthur Weasley In-Reply-To: <164.12e80979.2a9c4ac2@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43226 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., millergal8 at a... wrote: > society. I think it is faily obvious that whether Fudge turns out to be evil > or just plain stupid, his days as minister are numbered. He will either rot > in Azkaban(or whatever alternative comes up in subsequent books), or be > remembered forever and always as the man who looked the other way as > Voldemort came back to power... I expect Fudge *will* get kicked aside. My guess is that V will machinate Lucius into that office. Arthur will become Minister of Magic after Malfoy bites the Big Blodger. Unless Fudge is a closet DE, V will want his own guy in place. So, perhaps Fudge will go missing, or have an accident, or something. He might even turn up on the Hogwarts campus, babling a warning for D'Dore, like Crouch, Sr. did. There might be a coups d' etat in the MoM, forcing Arthur into hiding for awhile, but yes, I see him as Minister of Magic at the end of book 7. tex From psychic_serpent at yahoo.com Tue Aug 27 14:50:32 2002 From: psychic_serpent at yahoo.com (psychic_serpent) Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 14:50:32 -0000 Subject: Portkeys and Floo Network In-Reply-To: <195.c2368db.2a9c7e4f@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43227 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., eloiseherisson at a... wrote: > Vera Selkie: > > > I think it's likely that a muggle *could* be transported by a > > portkey, but only in the direct physical presence of (i.e., > > touching) someone with the talent to invoke it. This doesn't jibe with the concern, expressed in GoF, that Muggles not touch Portkeys. This is the reason given for making them things like old boots, used newspapers, etc. If Muggles couldn't be transported by Portkeys, there would be no need to fear their touching them. > There seem to be different types of Portkeys and I think this is > critical to the question. The Triwizard Cup seems to have been > transfigured so that the *first person who touched it* would > activate it (and we know that the situation was engineered, so > that Harry would be that person). > The Portkey that is used to transport the party from Stoatshead > Hill, however, seems to have been *time* sensitive. > The party had to be there by a specific time and it is announced > on their arrival as the 'seven past five from Stoatshead Hill'. I think of this as different types of triggers, rather than different types of Portkeys, but I suppose that's just semantics. > Now *had* a Muggle happened to pick it up at seven minutes past > five, I have no doubt in my own mind that they *would* have been > transported by it Precisely. Although why Portkeys don't constitute a "misuse of Muggle artifacts" is beyond me. After all, if someone can get in trouble for charming a tea set that might wind up in Muggle hands, it seems very chancy to leave an old boot lying about which could transport someone clear across the country if it is touched at the precise time it was preprogrammed to do so. Added to this is the problem of wizards being able to identify the Portkeys. IIRC, when our party reached Stoatshead Hill, they didn't kow what the Portkey was going to look like. I'm still mystified as to how they knew it was the boot instead of something else. Perhaps there was no other rubbish lying about. However, what would have stopped someone from coming along and taking the real Portkey and leaving the boot in its stead? There was nothing except the lack of other likely candidates to point to the boot being the Portkey. I think JKR has a wee plot hole here.... --Barb From jferer at yahoo.com Tue Aug 27 14:55:09 2002 From: jferer at yahoo.com (jferer) Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 14:55:09 -0000 Subject: The danger of turning inward Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43228 As one of the board Geists, I think we should take a step back from the direction of one or two of the threads here. We're drifting off- topic and into the dangerous territory of debating about debate, and it's on the edge of getting personal. I've seen it be the death of boards elsewhere. We're here to discuss the canon of the Harry Potter universe - the characters, the plots, our predictions of the future, our interpretations of the past. We are *not* here to argue about what kind of argument is legitimate, what things are worth discussing, and how we should go about making our points. These sorts of posts become more and more abstract until the original debate is completely lost, and so is the fun of being here as the members choose between the Hatfields and the McCoys (or the Montagues and the Capulets for the classicist contingent). This is Harry Potter for **Grownups**, and that means something. It means that -- we know everyone has the right to their opinion, but not all opinions are created equal. If you have something to say, say it, but be prepared to defend it. We aspire to having the most sophisticated, well-reasoned, thoughtful Harry Potter discussion on the Internet. --We're all supposed to be friends here. After we pick ourselves off the ground, we dust ourselves off and go back into the saloon and hoist a few together. --We know there is room here for everybody. We don't have to read, respond to, or be interested in everything here. We just have to make room for everyone who's got something to say about Harry Potter canon. So let's keep our heads firmly in the wizard universe, shall we? "They who have ears to hear, Let them hear" From psychic_serpent at yahoo.com Tue Aug 27 15:20:26 2002 From: psychic_serpent at yahoo.com (Barb P) Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 08:20:26 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Molly Weasley's Faulty Memory/Hermione's placement/Harry's tears In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020827152026.55150.qmail@web13008.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 43229 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "grey_wolf_c" wrote: > Uncmark wrote: > > Molly noticed the Whomping Willow and mentions it was planted > > after her time (which would make her older then Harry's > > parents). She also says that the Groundskeeper was Ogg. Is this > > different then Hagrid's position of Keeper of the Keys and > > Grounds? > > > > Hagrid was expelled and became groundskeeper about 50 years > > before Harry's Time (placed at 1943 by the Harry Potter Lexicon) > > So who was Ogg and when did Molly and Arthur attend Hogwarts? > > > > Uncmark > > The general consessus in the list is, IIRC, that Hagrid was hired > as a groundskeeper *under* Ogg's tutelage for a few years, until > Ogg retired and Hagrid learned the trade. Which means that, even > if Hagrid was there before Molly and Arthur, he wasn't the > groundskeeper as such, only the helper to Ogg. I would call that more of a theory that doesn't contradict canon, rather than a general consensus. There are other theories that do not contradict canon, such as Molly and Arthur attending school before Hagrid. Or, the most likely explanation, JKR's problem with sums is rearing its head again and this is a Flint. In the books, for instance, Ginny talks about how she had longed to attend Hogwarts ever since Bill had started school. Inasmuch as she wasn't born until several years after he probably started, that's a pretty good trick. OTOH, if she'd said that she'd wanted to come to Hogwarts ever since Percy had started, that would be more logical, as he would have started in 1987, when Ginny was six years old. I wonder whether JKR has any idea how many people around the world spend loads of time trying to navigate her rather math-challenged timeline! > Some listees have pointed out that Hermione might have been placed > in Gryffindor because Ravcenclaw has nothing to make her grow > (she's already a good student), but I think that she was put in > Gryffindor because she asked the hat for it (just like Draco asked > for Slytherin and Ron for Ravenclaw. Erm, when did Ron ask for Ravenclaw? And even if he did, this wouldn't gibe with your argument as he was clearly NOT placed in Ravenclaw. Did you mean to type Gryffindor? > Mike Zitzmann wrote: > > I think we can safely assume that Harry is the heir to > > Gryffindor. > I don't think that's a safe theory, Mike. I've argued against it > before, and the problem with that idea is that it undermines the > enire "we are what we choose and not what our blood dictates" idea > in the books. Dumbledore insist heavily in the fact that what > really is important is the choices one makes, not the blood like > Voldemort and the DEs think. If Harry is NOT a heir to Gryffindor, > OTOH, we have a great theme for the books: the new blood that's > not the heir of anything defeats the old blood heir of an ancient > wizard family. I find it as unlikely that Harry is THE heir of Gryffindor as I found it unlikely that Tom Riddle was THE heir of Slytherin. (Sorry to be so down on JKR's math abilities today. Warning: Here we go again....) The likelihood after about a thousand years that there would be only ONE heir for each of these lines is very low. I believe that SOMEWHERE in the world there MAY be another person who is a descendent of Slytherin, and while Harry might be AN heir of Gryffindor, I doubt he is THE heir, as in the only one. I also doubt that JKR will make bloodlines terribly important for Harry. OTOH, she IS slightly inconsistent in this. She seems to think bloodlines are dreadfully important if you are evil (Draco, Tom Riddle, the fact that there are adult Death Eaters named Crabbe and Goyle, etc.) but not if you are good (Muggle-born Hermione outclassing the other students). I hope this inconsistency is resolved in future books and we see someone good come from an "evil" background. We've already seen that evil can crop up in "good" circles (Peter Pettigrew) but so far we haven't seen the opposite. (I don't count Snape, as being from Slytherin doesn't automatically give you an "evil" background. If we learn that his parents were dark wizards, he just might qualify.) --Barb http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Psychic_Serpent http://www.schnoogle.com/authorLinks/Barb --------------------------------- Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From olivia at rocketbandit.com Tue Aug 27 14:56:57 2002 From: olivia at rocketbandit.com (Olivia) Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 10:56:57 -0400 Subject: Time-Sensitive Portkeys? (Was: Portkeys and Floo Network) In-Reply-To: <195.c2368db.2a9c7e4f@aol.com> Message-ID: <000401c24dd9$fd451440$9ca2e3d8@agstme.adelphia.net> No: HPFGUIDX 43230 Vera said: "There seem to be different types of Portkeys and I think this is critical to the question ... The Portkey that is used to transport the party from Stoatshead Hill, however, seems to have been *time* sensitive. The party had to be there by a specific time and it is announced on their arrival as the 'seven past five from Stoatshead Hill'." I was under the impression that the party touched the portkey at a certain time due to the careful planning of Wizard arrivals at the World Cup. The Ministry of Magic was afraid that Muggles would notice a sudden wave of new (odd-looking) people in the area so all portkey and arrivals by other means were carefully coordinated. I assumed that the portkey itself wasn't time-sensitive but that the MoM had given specific assignments for arrivals. ... By the way, I'm new to the list. Just wanted to say a quick hello. My name is Olivia St. Claire and I hail from Maine. Having subscribed (and unsubscribed) to several HP lists, I'm thrilled to have found one with so much interesting conversation and debate. Olivia From jferer at yahoo.com Tue Aug 27 15:34:14 2002 From: jferer at yahoo.com (jferer) Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 15:34:14 -0000 Subject: Time-Sensitive Portkeys? (Was: Portkeys and Floo Network) In-Reply-To: <000401c24dd9$fd451440$9ca2e3d8@agstme.adelphia.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43231 Olivia:"I was under the impression that the party touched the portkey at a certain time due to the careful planning of Wizard arrivals at the World Cup. The Ministry of Magic was afraid that Muggles would notice a sudden wave of new (odd-looking) people in the area so all portkey and arrivals by other means were carefully coordinated." I agree, but neither Mr. Weasley or Mr. Diggory did anything to make the Portkey operate. When 5:07 came around, that was it, they flew. It seems reasonable that a Portkey can be made time-sensitive or not, depending on the need. How otherwise could the Minstry's careful planning work out? You couldn't just trust everybody to wait until the right time to depart; there's always *somebody* who jumps the gun. OTOH, the Triwizard Cup wasn't time sensitive, so it must be possible for the wizard who casts the spell to choose what kind of Portkey to create. Olivia:"By the way, I'm new to the list." Cool. Welcome! From tabouli at unite.com.au Tue Aug 27 16:20:46 2002 From: tabouli at unite.com.au (Tabouli) Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 02:20:46 +1000 Subject: TBAY: Token twinnery from a dingy dinghy Message-ID: <009701c24de5$c4a9b120$05cd32d2@price> No: HPFGUIDX 43232 Far far away from Theory Bay, where the waves roll from horizon to horizon unbroken by land, bobs a small and dingy dinghy. At first glance, the stray seagulls floating overhead would see only a pair of abandoned oars, tangled around with sunbleached cloth and rope. If they troubled to look more closely, however, they would see a faint but unmistakeably animate stirring in that tangle, punctuated by the gleam of a wakening eye... Cindy: > "Oh, please. I don't do acronyms, remember?" The Captain glanced side to side and leaned in closer to Meg. "But I heard there is a fabulous acronym generator that they used to use over at LOLLIPOPS, just sitting there gathering dust. If you polish it up a bit, it ought to serve you very well indeed. I don't think you were around way back then, but the last owner got some *very* good results with it, all things considered."< Slowly, the crumpled heap of cloth and rope unfolds, and a human hand emerges, holding a battered nautical map of the northern seas. The owner of the hand tries to focus on this, but there is something hard and metallic poking into her stomach. Irritated, she uses the other hand to lever her body away from it and studies it with bleary, sun-dazzled eyes. It appears to be some sort of... machine. Written on the top of it, half rusted away with seawater and mostly concealed by a small limpet, she can just make out the words "cronym Generat". Memories ooze into her mind, strange memories involving something to do with... toads. Or was it tofu? How long has she been asleep? Growing intrigued, the dinghy's owner struggles into a seated position, and digs through the peculiar objects on the bottom of the boat. There are a number of rusty badges, a faded, crumpled pile of what appear to be costumes, and a bright pink mobile phone. Frowning to herself in bewilderment, she picks up the phone. There appear to be a number of text messages waiting on it, addressed to "Captain Tabouli, The Tangle of Rope and Cloth on the Floor, The Dingy Dinghy Floating Far Out To Sea". After a few confused minutes, she finds the right button and begins to read... *** Ahhhh, the Twins! There's always room for some more analysis of the Twins, I say. All that Joke Shop and blackmail business has me, at least, convinced that they will have a pivotal, and probably accidental/fortuitous, part to play in the forthcoming war. Imagine... it's Book 7, the body count is high, the final showdown is upon us. Yes, it's finally down to Voldemort and Harry, wands out for the duel that will decide the fate of the the world, both Wizard and Muggle. Avada Kedavra! cries Voldemort, brandishing his new, Harryproof wand, with a core of Dumbledore's beard bristles. Expelliarmus! cries Harry, always a stickler for the tried and trusted. Just as Harry's spell is about to hit, Voldemort's wand turns suddenly into a rubber fish and makes a squeaking noise... bboy: >The Ton Tongue Toffee and Dudley was certainly a risky and potentially dangerous prank, but common sense says that if the intended to sell these that, just like the Canary Cake, after a short period of time, your tongue goes back to normal on it's own.< Ahaaa, but remember those Toffees were at the *development* stage. The twins, as shown in GoF, weren't completely sure of what effect they would have. They asked their father how big Dudley's tongue got, remember? If they didn't know the exact effects of the charm they put on the toffees, they wouldn't necessarily know for sure that the effects would only be temporary. Dudley was their guinea pig. Their lab rat! If Arthur hadn't been around to shrink it, who knows what might have happened... Seriously, though, I've never been keen on JKR's use of Dudley as a punching bag. Yes, yes, Dudley uses Harry as a punching bag, but I'm talking more about authorial portrayal here. Dwelling on how grotesquely obese he is with malevolent glee. Having Hagrid put a pig's tail on him to punish Vernon for badmouthing Dumbledore. The Toffee business. And, which is most troubling, recounting these incidents in a way which strongly implies that she expects the readers to cheer gleefully at his downfall and see everything that befalls him as entirely deserved and hilarious. To borrow Dicentra's term, JKR's portrayal of the Dursleys has always struck me as... Toonish. Children's cartoon villains, a foil for Wonderboy and the Wizarding World. And, like most children's cartoon villains, they're ugly, simplistically drawn, and are regularly foiled at predictable moments using slapstick comeuppances at which the viewer is meant to laugh. Ah well. JKR said in an interview or two that she pities Dudley and views his parents' treatment of him as abusive, describing him as still redeemable, so maybe she's planning to flesh him out a little more (so to speak!) in later books. Pippin: > The twins aren't bullies. What they are is *rebels.* They don't attack those whom they perceive as weak. They attack the strong, using guerilla tactics which will doubtless come in handy in the war ahead.< Hmmm. Without delving too deeply into the whole bullying issue, I think the twins, at least, see their role as maintaining and upholding "team morale", using weapons which are gradually shifting from humour towards more drastic means (blackmail, violence) as they get older. The group represented by the "team" shifts depending on circumstances from the Weasley family to Gryffindor to the Good Side in the war, but if you look at their actions, it holds fairly well. They hassle Percy when they think he is not being a good team player, paying more attention to his own selfish ambitions (e.g. as prefect and later assistant to Mr Crouch). They pay particular attention to Harry's morale, as he is obviously the star "player", protecting him from Wood's dangerous Quidditch zeal, avenging him against Dudley, giving him the Map so he can go to Hogsmeade (which upsets Ron, but that doesn't matter, as Ron is a less significant "player"), standing up to Draco for him, and so on. They rather insensitively try to "cheer Ginny up" (and, most likely, entertain the rest of the "team") when they think she's dragging the side down by moping about a minor defeat (the petrification of Dennis Creevey), and dismiss upsetting personal events as irrelevant to team fortunes and therefore to be gotten over as quickly as possible so they don't affect performance (the death of pets). They hiss people on the enemy team (like Malcolm Baddock), bristle at someone who brought down morale by defeating Gryffindor (Cedric), and cheer on their father when he starts a fight with Lucius. They poke fun at someone who is a weak player (Neville) to keep the team entertained and perhaps also encourage him to become more alert and improve his performance. As for the bullying, their first loyalty is to the team and its star players, not to people's feelings, or physical wellbeing. Coaches have to be ruthless about dropping weak players from the side, or, if this isn't an option, bullying them into lifting their game. Grief over something unrelated to the game, like a dead pet, or the loss of a fellow player, can't be allowed to affect performance. They just need to toughen up. Coaches also have to take special care of their star players, and may find it difficult to conceal their resentment when a weaker side defeats their team because of circumstances outside their control (like Draco playing Dementor). They may come across as insensitive, playing favorites and bullying to individuals because of these things, but this is just too bad, in their view. The most important thing is winning, not compassion to individual team members. *** After reading the final message, the bedraggled occupant of the dinghy puts down the lurid pink phone and looks thoughtfully at the machine again. There is a slot on the side of it which looks mysteriously similar in size to the phone. On impulse, she slips the phone into the slot, presses a couple of levers on the machine at random, and then jumps back in shock when a grinding, chugging noise begins inside it. Very very slowly, a piece of paper exudes from the other side of the machine. On it are two slogans: PRATTLESNAKES (People Rejecting All The Twins' Lovingly Executed Schoolboy Needling As Kindling Emotional Suffering), and BUTTERFLIES (Brigade Upholding The Twins' Entertaining Role, Fuelling Laughs In Every Scene). Just as she is trying to figure out what this means, another port opens on the machine and spits out a clatter of little badges, which on closer inspection bear either the first slogan and a picture of a pair of small snakes or the second slogan and a pair of red and gold butterflies. Shaking her head, she carefully scoops these up, seals them in a glass bottle, and tosses the bottle overboard into the endless circle of sky and sea... Tabouli. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From foxmoth at qnet.com Tue Aug 27 16:46:17 2002 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 16:46:17 -0000 Subject: Fat Dudley, and Obesity in Canon In-Reply-To: <01C24D04.6ACAAAB0.judyshapiro@earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43233 Judy wrote: >>Unfortunately, this reasonable approach is undermined by the heavy (er, no pun intended) emphasis on nasty, fat Dudley and what a glutton he is. JKR repeatedly draws attention to a connection between Dudley stuffing himself and being fat, while never at all mentioning Ron's fondness for sweets in connection with the fact that Ron is thin, or Draco's constant receipt of sweets in connection with the fact that Draco is delicate. So, on balance I think the books somewhat reinforce the idea that fat people are to blame for their obesity.<< Only if you look at Dudley out of context. The books as a whole teach us that this kind of thinking is a seductive but misleading way to understand the world. Even in the Potterverse, where symbols really can take on nature of the things they stand for, so that unicorns' blood, for example, keeps you from dying, we find that Snape, though he seems the type, is not a villain, and that Quirrell, whose physiological defect makes him seem innocuous, is evil. The ending of Book One would not be nearly so powerful if we hadn't been lulled into thinking that in the Potterverse defects in personality show themselves as defects in appearance. Pippin From adatole at yahoo.com Tue Aug 27 16:42:21 2002 From: adatole at yahoo.com (Leon Adato) Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 12:42:21 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Snape's unborn child (was Death Eaters and their chidlren) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43234 Leon Adato ------------------- "Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored." - Aldus Huxley email: adatole at yahoo.com phone: 440-382-3268 -----Original Message----- From: arcum42 [mailto:Arcum_Dagsson at celticwind.zzn.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2002 4:03 AM To: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Death Eaters and their chidlren (was Nott's kid) --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Richelle Votaw" wrote: Not likely as far as with Lily goes, but I do like the idea of Snapes son who died being the catalyst for his change of heart, though.... ********** now Leon says: The only problem with the theory is that Dumbledor says in GOF that Snape changed over from Voldemort's team well in advance of his (Voldy's) downfall, and was a double-agent at great personal risk. Even 9 months (assuming Lily was due at that moment, which she wasn't; and assuming Snape could know immediately at the moment of conception - still all of that does not count as "well in advance". LA From rsteph1981 at yahoo.com Tue Aug 27 16:40:21 2002 From: rsteph1981 at yahoo.com (rsteph1981) Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 16:40:21 -0000 Subject: Dudley Deserved It? . . . and a ps about P.I.N.E. In-Reply-To: <00bc01c24c61$e4f20480$2987aa41@hppav> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43235 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Eric Oppen" wrote: > While his > parents no doubt did nothing to _discourage_ > Dudley's abuse of his cousin, I > somehow rather doubt that they gave him specific > directions ("Now, > Duddiekins, off to school, and make sure to get > your > gang together and give > your cousin a good sound thrashing!") if only > because that would clash with > their own perception of themselves as Normal, > Respectable People. Didn't Vernon tell Dudley to hit Harry with his Smelting stick in PS/SS? Seems encouragement and direction to me. It's a small step taking it from hom eto school. Rebecca ps how do I go about becoming a member of the glorious P.I.N.E and other Percy adoration societies? Any flaming hoops? :) From rsteph1981 at yahoo.com Tue Aug 27 17:15:18 2002 From: rsteph1981 at yahoo.com (Rebecca Stephens) Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 10:15:18 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Twins' age and when they leave Hogwarts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020827171518.45674.qmail@web20004.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 43236 --- pengolodh_sc wrote: > I am under the > very distinct impression that Fred and George have > not finished their > Hogwarts education, and that at the end of GoF, they > had only > concluded their sixth year at that institution. The > HP-Lexicon does > seem to back me up on this. I also do not think > they will just leave > Hogwarts now that they have received the 1000 > Galleons from Harry - > if nothing else, I suspect Molly Weasley would have > a thing or two to > say about it, and besides, 1000 Galleons would not > be able to support > them and support a new business. > > Assuming I am right in that the twins still have one > more year at > Hogwarts, then I cannot support the assumption that > they are adults, > either. Not in the legal way, at least - few > countries, if any, have > people reaching age of majority before they have > finished the level > of school they legally must finish. That they are > old enough that > they should understand some things and be expected > to show a given > level of maturity is true, but the term adult to me > implies legal > adulthood, and I do not think they've come that far > yet. They have just finished year six and do have to go another year. But, I believe legal adulthood comes at 17 for the WW. I'm not positive, but I think that's right. And the twins turned 17 in April. Rebecca ===== http://wychlaran.tripod.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes http://finance.yahoo.com From hp_fan16 at yahoo.com Tue Aug 27 17:15:41 2002 From: hp_fan16 at yahoo.com (gabrielle jones) Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 10:15:41 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Death Eaters and their chidlren (was Nott's kid) In-Reply-To: <1030418479.4031.51647.m10@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <20020827171541.33525.qmail@web12908.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 43237 Richelle writes: >>Known death eaters: Avery (first name or last name? Referred to Voldemort as Avery. Only Lucius was referred to by first name, that we know for certain, but Avery can be a first or last name). Lucius Malfoy The LeStranges (probably the thin man and dark haired woman in the pensieve--in Azkaban) Macnair Crabbe Goyle Nott Antonin Dolohov--Azkaban Evan Rosier--killed in a struggle Travers--Azkaban Mulciber--Azkaban Augustus Rockwood--Azkaban?? Ludovic Bagman (was he really a DE? I'm a bit confused on him) Barty Crouch Jr.--now as good as dead Severus Snape--spy for Dumbledore Igor Karkaroff--fled unamed man on trial with others for torture of Longbottoms--Azkaban Children who are or may be children of DE's: Draco Malfoy Vincent Crabbe Gregory Goyle ? Nott Now, interesting thing here is that they're all the same age. Does this mean that those four sort of did everything Lucius did? Or is this a Voldemort "Go reproduce" order. I know that's discussed before, but I'm hypothesizing here.<< Ok my turn: Not sure if it?s a previous topic (though I tried searching) More so than the ?reproduce? thing, I think the gender of the DEs is interesting. Of all the ones we know, excluding the LeStranges (who are a m/f couple,) the DEs have been Male. Is Voldemort sexist as well as blood biased? Perhaps he allows female DEs, i.e. LeStrange, but prefers men. Or perhaps women on the Dark side are just not DEs, just Dark witches, (a term we haven?t really heard much of in cannon.) Mrs Malfoy, Mrs Goyle and Mrs Crabbe, (assuming that Crabbe and Goyle?s fathers are DE, and they?re married,) are not considered DE. And in the case of Mrs Malfoy, she must be aware of her husband?s attachments to V, being Draco appears to know such. So why isn?t she part of the circle? Also the Children also appear to males as well. Does that mean they?ll be future DEs? Or will they have some importance being men? Richelle continues: (Minus info about foreign DE kids) >>Suppose *all* the DE's had babies the same year--being the same year Harry was born, which is interesting. Does Snape have a child somewhere? Hmm. Can't see that. But anyway, what would it *mean*? And why isn't Nott in Slytherin? Or if he is, why doesn't he run with Malfoy and co.? Richelle<< Me: Snape? A kid? Interesting. Who would the lucky lady be? Would she be a DE as well? Would she know Snape?s a DE? Unlikely as it seems, it could be possible. (although personally I don't think so.) Mathematically and time wise, Snape could have impregnated some woman just a short time before switching sides, the nine months later, Snape, no longer DE, has a kid. Maybe he never even finds out about it, maybe the woman doesn?t try and get the child support or something. (I know they probably don?t have it in the WW but still,) Could happen. Nott though, we don?t know if he ended up in Slytherin. Perhaps he did but he just doesn?t hang with Malfoy. Maybe the kid?s not very popular and just keeps to himself. He?s probably not a brute, like Crabbe and Goyle, and if he?s not like Malfoy himself, why would Malfoy associate with him anyway? Then again, he might not be in Slytherin, so maybe he won?t follow his father?s footsteps. (assuming DE Nott is his father) As we saw with the Crouches, this sort of thing isn?t hereditary. Better still perhaps young Nott is female, so she has no chance of following her father?s footsteps, so she?s in an other house, destined for something completely not-associated with her family, as we learned is not something that would prohibit someone from anything. Either way, I just wanted raise some questions. Normal- ~the ugly Veela~ From jodel at aol.com Tue Aug 27 17:46:38 2002 From: jodel at aol.com (jodel at aol.com) Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 13:46:38 EDT Subject: Twins' age and when they leave Hogwarts Message-ID: <39.2c4f48c7.2a9d14fe@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 43238 Grey Wolf writes (in response to Christian Stub's post); >>This is were you're wrong: canon tells us that wizards in WW come of age and are legally adults at 17. At that point, even most of them are still at Hogwarts, they're already adults who can learn to apparate, become animagi or start a business officialy.<< Where exactly does it say that the WW counts 17 as being "of age"? This is largely accepted in fandom, but I seem to keep missing the actual reference if there is one. (Fandome also seems to have some degree of confusion over the differences between "age of consent" and "legal adult".) My interpretation (which is an interpretation, I cannot find a definite statement on the matter in canon) is that one qualifies *as a wizard* upon completion of one's schooling, and/or having recieved a qualifying score on ones N.E.W.T.S. And that this may be regardles of chronological age. For most students this will turn out to be age 18 (Fred and George Weasley have an April Birthday, and will be 18 when they leave Hogwarts.). For a few, like Harry, it will be at age 17. For even fewer (like Marcus Flint?) it will be at age 19. I somehow doubt that the wizarding world is as hung up on arbitrary ages-as-qualifications as the mundane world. There are exceptions. That apparating licence requires that one be 18 years old. Possibly this is to assure that you don't have students trying to apparate on Hogwarts grounds, but it may be due to some other bureaucratic quirk. -JOdel From lupinesque at yahoo.com Tue Aug 27 18:00:12 2002 From: lupinesque at yahoo.com (lupinesque) Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 18:00:12 -0000 Subject: Twins' age and when they leave Hogwarts In-Reply-To: <39.2c4f48c7.2a9d14fe@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43239 Jodel asked: > Where exactly does it say that the WW counts 17 as being "of age"? This is > largely accepted in fandom, but I seem to keep missing the actual reference > if there is one. GoF, chapter 12. "Only students who are of age--that is to say, seventeen years or older--will be allowed to put forward their names for consideration." What is not clear is how this corresponds to being "of age" in the Muggle world (what kind of "of age" anyway? drinking, marriage, military service, voting . . . ? and *which* Muggle world?). What is clear is that it does not correspond to departure from school, as people who have barely begun their 6th and 7th years are allowed to participate in the Tournament, being deemed "of age," and as you point out, people finish school at different ages. Amy Z -------------------------------------------- "Professor Dumbledore offered Dobby ten Galleons a week, and weekends off," said Dobby . . . "but Dobby beat him down, miss." -HP and the Goblet of Fire -------------------------------------------- From lupinesque at yahoo.com Tue Aug 27 18:06:09 2002 From: lupinesque at yahoo.com (lupinesque) Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 18:06:09 -0000 Subject: Twins' age and when they leave Hogwarts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43240 One more LOON note (it's like Phoenix song, but not so pretty). Grey Wolf wrote: > The twins have *not* finished > Hogawarts: they'll start 7th year in book five. They won't leave > Hogwarts, and the 1000 Galleons is not supposed to be their only method > to start bussiness: I'd imagine that selling their trick at Hogwarts is > also included in his plans. Your first statement is straight out of canon (e.g. we are told that OWLS are taken in year five and F & G take theirs in PoA). Your second, however, is speculation. We don't know whether they will leave Hogwarts before their seventh year, nor whether any student other than Hagrid has ever done so. Nothing has indicated that the twins plan to leave early, but we are all going to have to wait and see. Amy Z From uncmark at yahoo.com Tue Aug 27 18:15:36 2002 From: uncmark at yahoo.com (uncmark) Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 18:15:36 -0000 Subject: Hermione's placement In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43241 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "jferer" wrote: > Alina:"Hermione in the end of PS/SS told Harry that "bravery and > courage" are more important than "books and cleverness". She values > the Gryffindor attributes more than she values the Ravenclaw ones. I believe that's the reason she's in Gryffindor." > > Yes! There's a lot more to Hermione that books and cleverness, and > we (and Hermione) are discovering what it is more and more. Your little vignette was interesting, but a little too Harry-centric for my choice. I think you overlook a lot of examples in the CofS of Hermione's sheer bravery. Here is a TWELVE YEAR OLD GIRL who finds herself the most obvious target of an ancient unknown monster and what did she do? (What would any reader do at age 12? Personally I would have faked an illness and gone home, hiding under my bed!) Hermione applies her formidable 'books and cleverness' and concocts a potion that was probably above NEWT level in her second year! This was at the risk of expulsion if discovered and resulted in a cat transformation of several weeks! When she realized what the monster was (Parselmouth voices + Pipes + petrification = Basdilisk) dod she scream for help? She had the presence of mind to look around corners with a mirror that saved her life and that of Percy's girlfriend. At the end of CofS, Dumbledore told Harry he has qualities that could place him in Griffindor or Slytherin. Hermione has the qualities of all four houses. IMHO I doubt that the Sorting Hat makes choices on how they affect Harry. If the student has qualities of several houses, choice and family may have some bearing. (I'm thinking while the Weasleys wanted to be in the same house as their parents, the Patil sisters may have wanted to live separately). However in Hermione's case, I feel that the hat saw all four houses qualities, but found her bravery as needing the most development. I look forward to seeing Hermione as well as other supporting characters showing their bravery in future books IF WE EVER GET THEM!!! Uncmark From nplyon at yahoo.com Tue Aug 27 18:42:58 2002 From: nplyon at yahoo.com (Nicole L.) Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 11:42:58 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Cho is Ever-So-Evil In-Reply-To: <20020827163440.32361.qmail@web40306.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20020827184258.22493.qmail@web20904.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 43242 Judy, I must agree with you. Cho *is* Ever-So-So-So. :) Thanks to my esteemed friend and master FILKer Lilac for giving me the privilege of inventing an acronym for her *bangy* (look, ma, I'm using Britishisms!) Cho turning Ever-So-Evil Theory. I now submit it to the rest of the group for approval. I have dubbed this theory: CONNIVING CHICK'S REVENGE (Crazy Overlord Notices Nice, Innocent Victim In Noxious Grief. Chides Her Into Choosing Killing, Serving Ruthless, Evil Voldemort's Especial Need to Get Even.) As you may have noticed, this theory is banking on Lilac's idea that Cho's grief will be exploited by Voldemort and the DEs, who will feed her false information about what transpired in the graveyard, thereby motivating Cho to help them get to Harry. This theory does not disallow the possiblity of Cho's eventual redemption. It just makes Cho more interesting, IMO. :) ~Nicole, amazed at what she can come up with when she's bored at work. :) __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes http://finance.yahoo.com From jferer at yahoo.com Tue Aug 27 19:09:56 2002 From: jferer at yahoo.com (jferer) Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 19:09:56 -0000 Subject: Hermione's placement In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43243 uncmark:"Your little vignette was interesting, but a little too Harry- centric for my choice. I think you overlook a lot of examples in the CofS of Hermione's sheer bravery. Here is a TWELVE YEAR OLD GIRL who finds herself the most obvious target of an ancient unknown monster and what did she do? (What would any reader do at age 12? Personally I would have faked an illness and gone home, hiding under my bed!) Hermione applies her formidable 'books and cleverness' and concocts a potion that was probably above NEWT level in her second year! This was at the risk of expulsion if discovered and resulted in a cat transformation of several weeks!" You cited more examples of Hermione's smarts and bravery. Very true, and no slighting of Hermione was intended - quite the opposite. Hermione has grown amazingly in her time at Hogwarts, as much as Harry himself has or even more. If she'd gone to Ravenclaw, she might have been the same little busybody at 14 she was at 11. Not now! I plead length considerations for not listing all the ways Hermione showed her bravery and smarts. It would be a long list. In the course of Hermione's conversation with Dumbledore, he did give her full credit for all the things she's done, even if he didn't enumerate them all. He calls her a champion (in the chivalric sense) of the school and the wizard world at large, and says, "among the great you are" and will be. Having said all that, Harry's going to get more glory than she will. It's the "man of action" who gets the fame. Fair, it's not, but it happens. Hermione is brave as well as smart, but she will always be known for brains first. "Mankind honors the wise but elevates the brave." BTW, amen about the "if we ever get them" (Books 5-7) part. From bdmorrp at budget.state.ny.us Tue Aug 27 19:57:04 2002 From: bdmorrp at budget.state.ny.us (erisedstraeh2002) Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 19:57:04 -0000 Subject: One-Dimensional Dursleys In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43244 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "francienyc" wrote: > It's struck me that in a series of books filled with highly complex > characters, the Dursleys are extremely one-dimensional characters. > I think the fact that Rowling can create such deep > characters like Snape makes me think the Dursleys are one- > dimensional on purpose. Now me: In an interview, JKR said "There's stuff coming with the Dursleys that people might not expect, but I'm not going to give too much away there if that's OK." This suggests to me that the Dursleys may become more than one-dimensional in future books. JKR also said in an interview "I love doing horrible things to the Dursleys." So that might not change (I, for one, hope it doesn't - I laughed out loud the first time I read the TTT episode, and I'm not ashamed to admit it!). ~Phyllis From eloiseherisson at aol.com Tue Aug 27 20:06:53 2002 From: eloiseherisson at aol.com (eloiseherisson at aol.com) Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 16:06:53 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Time-Sensitive Portkeys? (Was: Portkeys and Floo Netw... Message-ID: <6e.21c3974f.2a9d35dd@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 43245 Olivia: > Vera said: > > "There seem to be different types of Portkeys and I think this is critical > to the question ... The Portkey that is used to transport the party from > Stoatshead Hill, however, seems to have been *time* sensitive. The party > had > to be there by a specific time and it is announced on their arrival as the > 'seven past five from Stoatshead Hill'." Olivia: > > I was under the impression that the party touched the portkey at a certain > time due to the careful planning of Wizard arrivals at the World Cup. The > Ministry of Magic was afraid that Muggles would notice a sudden wave of new > (odd-looking) people in the area so all portkey and arrivals by other means > were carefully coordinated. > > I assumed that the portkey itself wasn't time-sensitive but that the MoM > had > given specific assignments for arrivals. Eloise: Actually, Vera isn't the guilty party here, it's me. Nice to meet you, Olivia. You could be right, although the question I would then ask is how the Portkey became activated. If it wasn't time-sensitive, then why didn't it whisk away the first person to touch it without waiting for the others? There were an awful lot of them and I can't think that they all managed to touch it at precisely the same moment. After touching it, they have to wait for the departure time before anything happens. But I agree that it was carefully co-ordinated. That was essential. Eloise > > ... > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From psychic_serpent at yahoo.com Tue Aug 27 20:23:16 2002 From: psychic_serpent at yahoo.com (psychic_serpent) Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 20:23:16 -0000 Subject: Twins' age and when they leave Hogwarts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43246 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "lupinesque" wrote: > Jodel asked: > > > Where exactly does it say that the WW counts 17 as being "of > > age"? > GoF, chapter 12. > > "Only students who are of age--that is to say, seventeen years or > older--will be allowed to put forward their names for > consideration." > > What is not clear is how this corresponds to being "of age" in the > Muggle world (what kind of "of age" anyway? drinking, marriage, > military service, voting . . . ? and *which* Muggle world?). Thanks for finding that, Amy! (Saved me the trouble--I just read that to my son recently.) I strongly suspect that JKR chose seventeen because it is the age at which teenagers may legally drive cars in the UK. I originally saw this connection in the section of GoF in which Percy's excitement about Apparition is discussed (Apparating downstairs every morning, just to prove he can do it). I think JKR may be thinking of Apparition in the wizarding world as the Muggle equivalent of driving a car. Since the drinking age in the UK is 18 and students often leave school at 16, after taking their GCSEs (formerly O-Levels, which JKR lampoons with the O.W.L.s), the logical parallel is with the driving age. --Barb http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Psychic_Serpent http://www.schnoogle.com/authorLinks/Barb From lucky_kari at yahoo.ca Tue Aug 27 20:39:10 2002 From: lucky_kari at yahoo.ca (lucky_kari) Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 20:39:10 -0000 Subject: Fred and George: The Bullies You Do Know In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43247 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "jferer" wrote: > Have you ever met a real bully? someone who is 'A person who is > habitually cruel or overbearing, especially to smaller or weaker > people?' The kind that beat kids for their lunch money, steal their > clothes off their backs, and stick smaller kids' heads into unflushed > toilets? Yes, I have met real bullies. There is more to them than the stereotypical bully exemplified in the pages of Calvin and Hobbes. "Moe": Calvin's tormentor, is a type of bully that does exist, but is not really such a great problem as you would think. No, most bullies are quite different from Nelson in the Simpsons. Between Grades 3 and Grade 5, I went through hell with bullies at my very toney Hogwarts-like private school. Here is their profile. - Rich. Upper-middle class. Well-dressed. - Popular with students and teachers. - High academic achievers. - Physically unimposing. - Overly sentimental in regards to animals and little children, while completely unempathetic to other weaker children. - Cliqueish and elitist. I actually began to draw up that list when I was being tormented and used it to turn the tables on them. By Grade 6, I had the upper hand of them, and I think I had a close escape from becoming Tabouli's "victim turned bully." I've already mentioned the life I lead my Grade 6 teacher, and there are many other things I regret. I think the day when I realized that I could make them squirm was when in Grade 5 they dumped one of their hangers-on (who later became my best friend at school), and I said, "Oh, the Chateau Clique is meeting again, is it?" That got a great roar of laughter from the rest of the class, and suddenly they were the target of derision instead of me for the rest of break. (The Chateau Clique, btw, was the horribly corrupt colonial government of Quebec that lead to the 1837 rebellion, and our current topic of study in History.) I was always clever, and I could be quite cruelly clever towards them. But they weren't pushing people's heads down toilets. No. Or taking people's lunch money. They already had plenty of lunch money, while their victims generally didn't. But they were habitually cruel and and overbearing to weaker classmates. And Fred and George Weasley have always reminded me very much of them in some (though not all) of their attributes. They were the bullies that You Do Know, as Elkins put it, except I was one of the few who didn't. Eileen From Ali at zymurgy.org Tue Aug 27 20:41:03 2002 From: Ali at zymurgy.org (alhewison) Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 20:41:03 -0000 Subject: Coming of age was Re: Twins' age and when they leave Hogwarts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43248 Jodel asked: Where exactly does it say that the WW counts 17 as being "of age"? Amy replied: GoF, chapter 12. "Only students who are of age--that is to say, seventeen years or older--will be allowed to put forward their names for consideration." What is not clear is how this corresponds to being "of age" in the Muggle world (what kind of "of age" anyway? drinking, marriage, military service, voting . . . ? and *which* Muggle world?). Barb said:- I strongly suspect that JKR chose seventeen because it is the age at which teenagers may legally drive cars in the UK. I originally saw this connection in the section of GoF in which Percy's excitement about Apparition is discussed (Apparating downstairs every morning, just to prove he can do it). I think JKR may be thinking of Apparition in the wizarding world as the Muggle equivalent of driving a car. Since the drinking age in the UK is 18 and students often leave school at 16, after taking their GCSEs (formerly O-Levels, which JKR lampoons with the O.W.L.s), the logical parallel is with the driving age. I agree Barb, but I also think that the slightly lower "Coming of Age" enables JKR to show Harry as an adult in the Potterverse. If the age of maturity was 18 to mirror British muggles, then the books would finish before Harry is officially a "man". Instead, he will be "of age" for potentially all of Book 7. This could open the plot up. For all we know, the ancient protection afforded to Harry for being with the Dursleys might cease as soon as he reaches 17. This would give him several weeks of "trouble" before he could go back to Hogwarts. It could also be that information relating to his past will be made available to him at this age. IMHO, Harry's 17th Birthday will be important - what I wonder is though, how old I will be by the time I get to read about it! Ali Who finds alot of the twins' antics funny but not the cursing Draco from behind ("ungentlemanly") or walking on him when he's unconscious. From banjoken at optonline.net Tue Aug 27 21:10:10 2002 From: banjoken at optonline.net (banjo_ken) Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 21:10:10 -0000 Subject: Twins' age and when they leave Hogwarts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43249 > GoF, chapter 12. > > "Only students who are of age--that is to say, seventeen years or > older--will be allowed to put forward their names for consideration." I think the "of age" that Dumbledore was talking about was specific to the tournament. 17 was the age limit the MoM set for students who wanted to enter the tournament. It doesn't necessarily correspond to anything else in the wizarding world. "Of age" has a bunch of different meanings in the US depending on what you're talking about. Driving age, voting age, and drinking age are all different (and some even vary from state to state). I'm willing to bet that the wizarding world is similar. Ken From gandharvika at hotmail.com Tue Aug 27 20:50:52 2002 From: gandharvika at hotmail.com (Gail Bohacek) Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 20:50:52 +0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups]99 Rank Dungbombs(FILK) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43250 99 Rank Dungbombs (A Filk by Gail Bohacek to the tune of _99 Red Balloons_ by Nena) Fred and George in Zonko's Joke Shop Buy a bag of dungbombs with the money they've got Light them off at the break of dawn 'Till one by one, they were done Down the hall, Filch's nostrils' flare Comes the message, "Something smells there" Wafting through the corridors 99 rank dungbombs go off 99 rank dungbombs stinking up the Hogwarts' halls Panic swells, it's red alert There's Mrs. Norris and Argus Filch Fred and George spring to life As fast as their feet can fly With Filch running close behind Where 99 rank dungbombs went off 99 detention sheets, 99 more to complete Filch growls, snarls, glares and scowls Calls Fred and George something foul Threatens them with detention Disembowelment, execution The Headmaster will be informed That 99 rank dungbombs went off 99 cabinets of files One marked confiscated and dangerous Fred and George have an intuition George creates a quick diversion Fred reacts and in a flash Pulls out the Marauder's Map Filch doesn't see; he had to cough As yet another rank dungbomb goes off 99 rank dungbombs go off 99 schemes Fred and George have planned All helped by the Marauder's Map Messrs Moony, Wormtail, Padfoot and Prongs Lead them to where they don't belong Now to Harry they confess The secret of their sly success They bequeath to him the map Now to Hogsmeade, he may go..... -Gail B. who proudly wears her new BUTTERFLIES badge _________________________________________________________________ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx From eloiseherisson at aol.com Tue Aug 27 21:26:56 2002 From: eloiseherisson at aol.com (eloiseherisson at aol.com) Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 17:26:56 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Fred and George: The Bullies You Do Know Message-ID: <64.2446b896.2a9d48a0@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 43251 I was away when all this started and I should probably keep out of it, but........... Forgive me if this has been covered in the posts I haven't caught up with yet, but I'm just wondering *why* we're arguing about this (other than the fact that the twins' behaviour does come in for these periodic debates). What I mean is, these are fictional characters (leaving aside for the moment whether they're Toons, or 'real' people), so is the argument really not so much about whether they are bullies as about what JKR is communicating via them: whether or not she is condoning bullying, whether or not she has drawn characters who are out of keeping with the moral message of the books (i.e., are they a *mistake*), is it all about divining that authorial intent that we're not supposed to worry about? It seems to me that most people in this discussion have good and valid things to say. I certainly understand where Elkins is coming from. I myself only underwent mild bullying at school, most of it in the form of verbal taunting, although I was pushed around a bit. But bullying in any form is ugly and there is no way I would wish to see it condoned. So if we say that the twins *are* bullies, what is JKR saying about it? They are portrayed as popular: liked by their house despite losing loads of points, liked by Dumbledore and liked by Harry, one of whose last actions has been to encourage them by giving them his winnings towards the joke shop. My impression is that JKR likes the twins. Does that mean she's condoning bullying, or does it mean that she doesn't perceive their behaviour in that light? Is she betraying that it's a topic she hasn't thought through, or did she never expect us to read them in this light? *Is* what the twins are doing bullying? This seems to have arguments on both sides. I think I would tend to agree that *most* of the time their 'victims' are either older or in a position of some authority (like Quirrell). But isn't another characteristic of bullies that they tend to pick on the same one or few vulnerable people? I would be much more concerned if, for instance, they always picked on Neville. Yet when Neville does fall victim, he takes it in good part and it seems almost like he's being included as one 'big' enough to be victim of the joke. It is entirely different from what happens to Dudley with the TTToffee. That, as has been pointed out was surely their version of retributive justice, misguided perhaps, but a condemnation of Dudley's own bullying behaviour. The twins are portrayed as jokers writ large and practical jokers at that. Humour tends to need a victim: it is frequently at someone else's expense. Now, we have to be mindful of our actions on others; what we see as teasing, someone else may see as taunting. I'm *very* conscious of this, as I tease myself and I have one child who *cannot* be teased under any circumstances. I've lost count of the times that normal, everyday family banter has ended up with the child in question in floods of tears over something that anyone else would laugh about. Practical joking is a particularly difficult area as it has physical connotations and these may be easily perceived as (or turn into) physical bullying. But... I think we should put the twins' behaviour into the context of the Tough wizarding culture that we have so often commented on. This is a culture where children are routinely put into what we would see as less than ideal situations: Neville is dropped off Blackpool pier; a detention involves an expedition into the Forbidden Forest to find out what's been killing unicorns; the Triwizard Tournament involves facing dragons and Hagrid's beasts, apart from anything else; it is implied that within living memory, students have been suspended from the ceiling in chains for breaking rules and Arthur still bears the marks from being caught after a midnight stroll with Molly. When Draco cavils at going into the Forbidden Forest, Hagrid bluntly points out that 'that's how it is at Hogwarts'. In the context of all this and even of some of the magic they are taught and glimpses of books etc we see, the twins' behaviour perhaps isn't as bad as it might be if they were Muggles. I'm not sure that what the twins get up to would be perceived as bullying in the WW, even if it would in RL. Many of their practical jokes are actually the fruits of research in pursuit of their goal of opening a joke shop. Zonko's is apparently accepted and practical jokes are its stock in trade. Is everyone who uses a Zonko's product a bully? Now, for me, the most disturbing incident is the well-discussed 'train stomp'. This *does* seem to indicate real ill-will. OTOH, the battle lines have been drawn up and it is clear which side Draco et al are on. Never mind, even the battle field has its code of honour and this was clearly breached. But here, I would come back to Dicentra's analysis of the twins as Toons. You see, I think that JKR draws on so many different genres in her writing. There is epic, there is fairytale, there is the detective mystery, there is fantasy and there are probably many more that I haven't mentioned. Her books carry a serious moral message. Well, probably several messages. But they are are also *funny* and she makes use of a number of different types of humour. IMO, her portrayal of the twins does make use of slapstick, Toon-type humour. I don't think they are necessarily Toons *all* the time, but sometimes they are. Possibly we should see the train stomp in this light. OTOH, they are possibly more like 'real' chacters in their interaction with their family. Oh dear, what am I trying to say? I think this calls for some meta-thinking, (if I've finally got the meaning of that right!) ;-) I suppose the bottom line is that from what we know of JKR as a person, we can be sure that she would never condone bullying. If the twins *are* bullies (and personally I think that we need more evidence of deliberate, callous, ill will, rather than careless humour at others' expense for this to be the case), then we can be sure that they will meet their come-uppance at some point. (I do realise here that I am distinguishing between intent and effect; the effect may of course be the same whatever the intent.) At the moment, I would say that superficially at least, she seems to approve of them. This suggests to me that they do, at least partially, perform a *literary* function of providing comic relief: they function as Toons. Otherwise, the writing is careless and given the number of people who do see them as bullies, JKR has let slip in a possible undesirable apparent approbation of something that I am sure she would condemn. I think this is why the train stomp is so difficult. At a visceral, childish, cartoon-loving level, we can revel in retribution being given out to Draco et al, just as we would when Wile E. Cayote falls off the cliff yet again. But of course we would never condone such treatment being meted out in the real world. The real-life message we have come to expect from JKR and the language of Toon-land clash here. As right-thinking folks we dislike the behaviour and, I would venture to suggest want to distance ourselves from acknowledging that 'vengeance is sweet'. I'm a Snapefan, so I will acknowledge it! ;-) If vengeance isn't far up my own list of priorities, perhaps it is only because a willingness to own up to the less pleasant facets of our personalities goes a long way towards dissipating them. (I have a lot of others to work on, though!) And shouldn't one of the functions of literature be to awaken some of this awareness of ourselves? I think similar clashes occur throughout JKR's writing: the lack of psychological trauma suffered by Harry despite his abusive childhood, which is understandable if we explain it as a mythic or fairytale early childhood; the 'greyness' of the 'Light' side which suggests that good an evil are complex, when we are clearly told which side to take; the treatment of Slytherin House (for instance the argument a while ago over Dumbledore's treatment of Slytherin at the end of PS/SS). There are more, I'm sure. There are parts of the books which bear detailed moral analysis and parts which, perhaps, do not; parts which perhaps were written with other intent, merely to amuse rather than to instruct. (Although this does not negate Cindy's point about the twins' actions having consequences for others.) Really, as often, I want to agree with everyone! I think JKR's characterisation of the twins is too complex a subject to be analysed on one level. I think they perform different functions in different contexts and that they could be developed in either direction. Eloise. From lupinesque at yahoo.com Tue Aug 27 21:32:22 2002 From: lupinesque at yahoo.com (lupinesque) Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 21:32:22 -0000 Subject: meaning of "of age" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43252 Banjoken wrote: > I think the "of age" that Dumbledore was talking about was specific > to the tournament. 17 was the age limit the MoM set for students who > wanted to enter the tournament. It doesn't necessarily correspond to > anything else in the wizarding world. Well put, Ken, and I thought about that possibility but didn't have the mental wherewithal to explain why I thought it wasn't the case. I probably still don't, but it just doesn't read quite right to me. I think that when he refers to "of age" he is indeed referring to something outside of the Tournament rules, and I'll take a whack at explaining why. If the only meaning of "of age" is "this is the age at which I have determined you may do activity X," then it doesn't spring to the tongue as a useful expression for explaining who may and may not do activity X. Imagine a family in which the girls are allowed to pierce their ears at age 15. That is the only significance of the age 15 in this family and their society. So would you ever hear these conversations?: 13-year-old daughter to mom: "Why can't I get my ears pierced NOW?" Mom to daughter: "Because you're not of age." or Kids to dad: "Who can get their ears pierced?" Dad to kids: "The ones who are of age, 15 years old." Possible, but not a likely way to say it. Mom would say "because in this family the rule is you may get your ears pierced when you're 15." Dad would say "the ones who are 15." Only if 15 meant "of age" in some other context familiar to all of them would this phrase be likely to be used. Amy Z who got 'em done at age 6, 12 years before she was "of age" for anything really useful From Ali at zymurgy.org Tue Aug 27 22:06:20 2002 From: Ali at zymurgy.org (alhewison) Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 22:06:20 -0000 Subject: meaning of "of age" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43253 > Banjoken wrote: I think the "of age" that Dumbledore was talking about was specific to the tournament. 17 was the age limit the MoM set for students who wanted to enter the tournament. It doesn't necessarily correspond to anything else in the wizarding world. Amy agreed:- Well put, Ken, and I thought about that possibility but didn't have the mental wherewithal to explain why I thought it wasn't the case. I probably still don't, but it just doesn't read quite right to me. I think that when he refers to "of age" he is indeed referring to something outside of the Tournament rules, and I'll take a whack at explaining why. If the only meaning of "of age" is "this is the age at which I have determined you may do activity X," then it doesn't spring to the tongue as a useful expression for explaining who may and may not do activity X. Imagine a family in which the girls are allowed to pierce their ears at age 15. That is the only significance of the age 15 in this family and their society. So would you ever hear these conversations?: 13-year-old daughter to mom: "Why can't I get my ears pierced NOW?" Mom to daughter: "Because you're not of age." or Kids to dad: "Who can get their ears pierced?" Dad to kids: "The ones who are of age, 15 years old." Possible, but not a likely way to say it. Mom would say "because in this family the rule is you may get your ears pierced when you're 15." Dad would say "the ones who are 15." Only if 15 meant "of age" in some other context familiar to all of them would this phrase be likely to be used. I say:- Whilst canon may yet prove me wrong, I must respectively disagree with you. In the UK the phrase "coming of age", or "of age" has a quite specific meaning which is legally defined as at 18 years old (formerly 21). According to my trusty dictionary this means to reach adult status. Whilst I accept that the WW might use different phrases to mean different things, I can't think of any other phrases off the top of my head (though please feel free to show me!) I think that the average Brit (be they wizard or muggle) would phrase a sentence differently if it meant that they hadn't reached the relevant age (but not the age of majority). For example, if you were 16 and moaning that you couldn't take your driving test yet: You wouldn't be told you're not of age, but you're not old enough. Molly uses the same phrase "You're not of age" when replying to the twins complaints about not being able to apparate (p 63 GoF UK edition). Of course, this doesn't really help in establishing the meaning of "of age", as your argument (or mine) would be equally valid. But it is a further use of the phrase outside the tournament context. Ali From Ali at zymurgy.org Tue Aug 27 22:11:13 2002 From: Ali at zymurgy.org (alhewison) Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 22:11:13 -0000 Subject: meaning of "of age" - apology In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43254 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "alhewison" wrote: > > > Banjoken wrote: > I think the "of age" that Dumbledore was talking about was specific to the tournament. 17 was the age limit the MoM set for students who wanted to enter the tournament. It doesn't necessarily correspond to anything else in the wizarding world. > > Amy agreed:- At this point I meant to say disagreed, as I was actually agreeing with Amy - sorry, I pressed the button too quickly. > > Well put, Ken, and I thought about that possibility but didn't have the mental wherewithal to explain why I thought it wasn't the case. I probably still don't, but it just doesn't read quite right to me. I think that when he refers to "of age" he is indeed referring to something outside of the Tournament rules, and I'll take a whack at explaining why. > > If the only meaning of "of age" is "this is the age at which I have determined you may do activity X," then it doesn't spring to the > tongue as a useful expression for explaining who may and may not do activity X. Imagine a family in which the girls are allowed to > pierce their ears at age 15. That is the only significance of the > age 15 in this family and their society. So would you ever hear > these conversations?: > > 13-year-old daughter to mom: "Why can't I get my ears pierced NOW?" > Mom to daughter: "Because you're not of age." > > or > > Kids to dad: "Who can get their ears pierced?" > Dad to kids: "The ones who are of age, 15 years old." > > Possible, but not a likely way to say it. Mom would say "because in > this family the rule is you may get your ears pierced when you're > 15." Dad would say "the ones who are 15." Only if 15 meant "of age" > in some other context familiar to all of them would this phrase be > likely to be used. > > I say:- > > Whilst canon may yet prove me wrong, I must respectively disagree (with Banjoken) > with you. In the UK the phrase "coming of age", or "of age" has a > quite specific meaning which is legally defined as at 18 years old > (formerly 21). According to my trusty dictionary this means to reach adult status. Whilst I accept that the WW might use different phrases to mean different things, I can't think of any other phrases off the top of my head (though please feel free to show me!) I think that the average Brit (be they wizard or muggle) would phrase a sentence differently if it meant that they hadn't reached the relevant age (but not the age of majority). For example, if you were 16 and moaning that you couldn't take your driving test yet: > > You wouldn't be told you're not of age, but you're not old enough. > > Molly uses the same phrase "You're not of age" when replying to the > twins complaints about not being able to apparate (p 63 GoF UK > edition). Of course, this doesn't really help in establishing the > meaning of "of age", as your argument (or mine) would be equally > valid. But it is a further use of the phrase outside the tournament > context. > > Ali Who hates replying to the wrong part of the posts - but is careless, and very very human! From irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com Tue Aug 27 22:52:11 2002 From: irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com (Irene Mikhlin) Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 23:52:11 +0100 Subject: Fred and George: The Bullies You Do Know References: Message-ID: <008301c24e1c$641a6f20$e68201d5@oemcomputer> No: HPFGUIDX 43255 I'll try to add a new aspect to this most instructive discussion (and not offend anyone in the process :-) Elkins wrote: > Research into the psychological profiles of bullies in both > Scandinavian and English-speaking countries has found that cross- > culturally they exhibit the following traits: > > -- physically strong and/or coordinated > -- socially popular > -- assertive with both peers and adults > -- high levels of physical courage > -- very high levels of self-esteem > -- impulsive > -- feel little or no sympathy for victims (lack remorse) > -- positive attitudes towards violence > -- low levels of empathy > -- difficulty recognizing or understanding their own and others' > emotions > -- competitive > -- lack self-reflection > -- resistant to compromise Is it just me, or did anyone else at this point felt compelled to say "Hello, Sirius Black!" ? (Don't run away, I'm not going to mention the p***k. Not a word.) I read the whole huge thread on bullies in one go, and it helped me to answer a question that bothered me for a long time: why it seems widely accepted opinion among Snapefans that Sirius was a "popular bully" when canon gives us nothing to support that? And after some soul-searching I think it's a projection of Fred and George pair to James and Sirius. As was established, it is possible to make a solid case of the twins being popular bullies based on the canon (solid case does not mean the prosecution is necessarily going to win it, mind). Is there some basis to establish similarity between the two pairs? Several characters comment on how the twins remind them about James and Sirius: McGonagall, Madame Rosmerta and Hagrid, if I'm not mistaken. So it is possible the canon works on some subconscious level and makes Sirius "guilty by association". Irene From hp_fan16 at yahoo.com Tue Aug 27 20:52:12 2002 From: hp_fan16 at yahoo.com (hp_fan16) Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 20:52:12 -0000 Subject: Time-Sensitive Portkeys? (Was: Portkeys and Floo Netw... In-Reply-To: <6e.21c3974f.2a9d35dd@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43256 > > Vera said: > > > > "There seem to be different types of Portkeys and I think this is critical > > to the question ... The Portkey that is used to transport the party from > > Stoatshead Hill, however, seems to have been *time* sensitive. The party > > had > > to be there by a specific time and it is announced on their arrival as the > > 'seven past five from Stoatshead Hill'." > > > Olivia: > > I assumed that the portkey itself wasn't time-sensitive but that the MoM > > had > > given specific assignments for arrivals. > > Eloise: > You could be right, although the question I would then ask is how the Portkey > became activated. If it wasn't time-sensitive, then why didn't it whisk away > the first person to touch it without waiting for the others? There were an > awful lot of them and I can't think that they all managed to touch it at > precisely the same moment. After touching it, they have to wait for the > departure time before anything happens. > > But I agree that it was carefully co-ordinated. That was essential. > > Eloise Eloise is right. "With difficulty, owing to their bulky backpacks, the nine of them crowded around the old boot held out by Amos Diggory." as stated in GoF US ed. Amos is very clearly already holding the boot, but he does not get transported until exactly 7 past the hour, when they all were touching the boot. That's from cannon, being that later on, the portkey, which transports Harry and Cedric to the graveyard, is activated when they first touch it, there must be different types of portkeys as Vera first said. Normal- ~the ugly Veela~ From prefectmarcus at yahoo.com Wed Aug 28 00:21:07 2002 From: prefectmarcus at yahoo.com (prefectmarcus) Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 00:21:07 -0000 Subject: How Portkeys Work and Herminone's Placement Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43257 I have a thing for Occam's Razor. The simpliest solution is likely right. So... The Portkey spell is a time-armed charn that is triggered by touch. The Portkey arms itself at a certain time. The first person to touch it triggers the spell. You can place multiple spells upon one Portkey. Imagine, if you will, the night of Halloween 1981. Hagrid has to get to Godric Hollow, go someplace else for about 24-hours (love the Weasleys' idea), go to #4 Privet Drive, and then return to Hogwarts. He goes to McGonagall. She puts a series of enchantments on a single Portkey. One to get to Godric Hollow immediately. One to go his refuge in an hour. One to go to #4 Privet Drive at Midnight 1 Nov. And one to get to Hogwarts at 12:30 AM 2 Nov. Hagrid, after going to Godric Hollow, puts the Portkey away into one of his multiple pockets and rescues Harry. While waiting for the Portkey to arm itself, Sirius shows up and offers the bike. Hagrid, seeing the chance to save the Portkey for later, takes the bike to his refuge. When his errand is through, he now has a portkey to get to his refuge anytime he wants and return with a short stop at Privet Drive. Now, what the result of all those jumbled up armings, I have no idea. But it makes the spell into one simple spell without several variations. This explains how the boot at Stoathill worked. It armed itself at 5:05, or whatever the time was. They had to find it before then else the first person to touch it would trigger it, leaving everybody behind. So they all stood around touching it so that when it armed itself, it was immediately triggered. This also explains the cup. Psuedo-Moody charmed it to arm itself shortly after the last task began. He also charmed it to arm itself later to return, possibly for Voldemort's use. So when Harry and Cedric both touch it at the same time, it was already armed to go to the graveyard. The second charm did not arm itself to return until later. Any holes? As to Herminone's placement, it is the same deal with all the other children. I have always felt that the hat essentially contains the essense of the four founders. When a student is being sorted, the founders have a debate. The winner gets the pupil. As many things as possible goes into placement. Potential for growth and friendships. Size of placement so far. Who's been placed already. The student's preference. Personality type does play a major role, but certainly not the only role. Slytherin would want Hermione because she stops at nothing in getting what she wants which is to be the best. Ravenclaw would certainly want her for her accademic achievements. Hufflepuff admires her work- ethic. And Griffindor admires her courage and bravery. She could go anywhere. I suspect it put her in Griffindor because she admires bravery and courage above all else, and we tend to emulate what we admire. Marcus From siriuskase at earthlink.net Wed Aug 28 00:27:41 2002 From: siriuskase at earthlink.net (Sirius Kase) Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 20:27:41 -0400 Subject: What is a Bully? - dare I bring up that tedius subject? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43258 What is a bully? We've seen lots of examples of nasty behavior that supposedly isn't bullying. We know this because we know the motives of the people involved. At the risk of sounding like I'm in the Twins are Bullies faction, I'd like to cite bboy_mn's example of what isn't bullying behavior. > 'Kicking' Draco out of the cabinet was not an assault; again, it was > an act of disrespect. They pushed him out of the compartment with > their feet because he wasn't worthy of the consideration or effort of > bending over and pushing him out with their hands. The kick was not, > by any interpretation that I can see, a blunt force trauma kick. They > push him out using their feet which is still technically a kick, but > it is NOT an assaultive kick; a kick by definition only. By the way, > that's is exactly what I would have done, and I'm about as far from a > bully as it is possible to get. > > You can argue the point all you want, but the 'Fred and George are > bullies' faction, will never convince me that Fred and George are > intentionally vicious malicious mean spirited power-mad predators. > > That's my story and I'm sticking to it. > > bboy_mn > No one outside of that train compartment heard Draco's horrible remark and I doubt that he will repeat it when his father or another adult removes him and his friends from the train. It will simply look like one gang was flattened by a rival gang. I don't expect that Draco's father will be at all sympathetic to Harry and company even if they make a public explanation of the incident. Here's another incident. This one doesn't involve the twins, but can you interpret it as anything other than an unprovoked attack on the victims? Sure, we know their reasons, but would anyone who wasn't extremely sympathetic to Harry and company agree? Two boys poison two other boys and lock them in a closet. They don't return to let them out, they are left for someone else to free. We know that they do this simply to get them out of the way, their presence would be inconvenient. They are not doing it to lighten up the atmosphere. They never publicly state the motives or even apologize Nobody asked to be knocked out and stuffed in a closet. there is no indication that Crab or Goyle had been mistreating Harry or Ron in the least. C&G are victimized for no reason that they can control. Victims rarely understand their attackers true motives. Uninvolved third parties are even less likely to know. Can you imagine what the person who freed C&G thought of their predicament? It depends, some would assume that they deserved it for some reason, others would be shocked. And on the train? I wonder who discovered Draco and company? Why would they be sympathetic to Harry and company? Harry has just been written up as power hungry and insane. Even if someone in the Wizard World knows to take Rita's reporting with a grain of salt, that isn't any reason to excuse Harry's group either. No one knows what really happened other than the parties involved. So, who is a bully? Is it based on the attacker's motives or how the victim feels or responds? Motives and feelings are unknowable to others. The third party observer may empathize based on how they would feel in the situation, but that doesn't reveal how either the attacker or the viction feel or think. We do know that the "Good Guys" have better motives than simply making their victims feel bad. But is that a valid excuse? BTW, we need to remember at all times that third party observers who are characters in the book have a very different point of view than us readers. The narrative has been written to be extremely sympathetic to Harry and his friends. If Harry likes someone, their actions are described in the most positive way imaginable. If the reader is lazy, he will always see the "Good Guys" behavior as excusable. Because of Harry's history, the wizarding public is also inclined to like him and accept Dumbledore's explanations. But as the story wears on, I think that Harry is using up his store of Good Will and will eventually use up much of Dumbledore's political capital as well. I mean, how far can you go based on something you did as baby, being a sports hero, and the incredible explanations of a senile old guy who has lost whatever ability he ever had to hire good teachers and run a safe school? If Dumbledore's pet continues to leave dead and unconscious bodies in his wake, that must be troubling even if one is inclined to like Harry. Sirius Kase [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From siriuskase at earthlink.net Wed Aug 28 00:32:45 2002 From: siriuskase at earthlink.net (Sirius Kase) Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 20:32:45 -0400 Subject: Fred and George: The Bullies You Do Know Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43259 Abigail was discussing why she finds the bullying discussion to be tedious. I agree with most of your/her reasoning, that the arguments are getting to be repetitive and revolve around different definitions of bully and bullying. The two sides don't appear to be getting closer, that is what I find tedious. The topic itself could be interesting and that I suppose is why it persists on the list. I agree with much of what Abigail says, but I'm not sure I agree with the reasoning that the twins and their behavior can't be discussed meaningfully because they aren't meant to be deep characters. Harry doesn't think deeply about them, that doesn't mean that in future books, their questionable behavior won't take on a new significance. Statements that don't mean much now might be very meaningful in the context of the future books. If we were waiting for book three, would we be debating the significance of the flying motorcycle in the first book? Abigail: > Because it's an unsatisfying pursuit. Sirius, Lupin, Snape truly have depth, > and their flaws do turn them into interesting characters. I don't perceive > the twins as having this kind of depth, and claiming that they are bullies > doesn't help to give them that depth because their allegedly bullying > behaviour is never addressed by canon. They are treated as walking jokes - > barely even distinguishable one from the other - and their antics are never > very firmly criticised or shown as having negative effects on anyone (not yet, > anyway). Without these elements, any depth we perceive in the characters > has either been so completely hidden by JKR that one wonders why it was > introduced in the first place, or is a subversive reading of the characters. > There are some characters, like Neville, that can shoulder the burden of a > subversive reading, but the twins are not nearly meaty enough for it. We must remember that we are confined to Harry's Point of View which doesn't give us at all a complete and unbiased understanding of the twins. Much of what the twins do would be dreadful if Harry didn't have such a positive opinion of them. He "knows" that they mean well, that they are good guys at heart. They stick up for Harry and virtually save his life when the Dursleys are starving him. How could he not like them? And when he notices behavior that could be considered bullying, he discounts it because he knows they mean well, that they are lightening up the situation, not trying to hurt the "victim". Why should we expect others characters to have the same opinion as Harry? We don't know what the other Gryffindors or Slytherins or the teachers think. How do we know that Neville enjoys being the butt of jokes? Going along with it may be his way of coping, laughing at himself might work better than fighting them, after all, they are rather popular and the other kids would rather laugh at him than stick up for him. Since Neville doesn't have the ability to change the situation, he chooses to go along with a situation that he may not really enjoy. And remember, we only see what Harry sees, Neville might be crying his eyes out when Harry isn't looking or chooses not to see. Oh dear, I'm starting to sound like I belong in the twins are bullies camp. I didn't mean too. My point is that the twins might be bullies or might not, both arguments are legit. It depends on what motives you attribute to them and how you interpret Neville's reaction. Which side the listees take depends a lot on their personal experience. But in this story, we must remember that it isn't an absolute fact that anyone is a bully, it is perceptions that matter and *Harry* clearly does not see them as bullies. Whether anyone else (in the books) does is not clear from canon. But anyone who has been in Neville's (or Dudley, etc) situation is bound to add their own feelings to the story. I also think that Harry's pure hate for Draco is misunderstood and trivialized by the adults as a simple rivalry over who gets to be the top dog. It is seen as balanced and fair and that Harry is defending his postion quite well. All the really awful stuff we know about Draco is hidden from the teachers. Harry may feel bullied, but most people in the Wizard World see him as being more powerful than he sees himself. sirius kase [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From siriuskase at earthlink.net Wed Aug 28 00:59:55 2002 From: siriuskase at earthlink.net (Sirius Kase) Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 20:59:55 -0400 Subject: meaning of "of age" Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43260 Ali said:- > Whilst canon may yet prove me wrong, I must respectively disagree > with you (Banjoken). In the UK the phrase "coming of age", or "of age" has a > quite specific meaning which is legally defined as at 18 years old > (formerly 21). According to my trusty dictionary this means to > reach adult status. Whilst I accept that the WW might use different > phrases to mean different things, I can't think of any other phrases > off the top of my head (though please feel free to show me!) I think > that the average Brit (be they wizard or muggle) would phrase a > sentence differently if it meant that they hadn't reached the > relevant age (but not the age of majority). For example, if you were > 16 and moaning that you couldn't take your driving test yet: > You wouldn't be told you're not of age, but you're not old enough. > Molly uses the same phrase "You're not of age" when replying to the > twins complaints about not being able to apparate (p 63 GoF UK > edition). Of course, this doesn't really help in establishing the > meaning of "of age", as your argument (or mine) would be equally > valid. But it is a further use of the phrase outside the tournament > context. > Ali In the US "of age" similarly means that a person isn't legally old enough. It normally isn't used outside of a legal context. That's my experience at least. Now the age itself depends on the activity being regulated. Drinking has a different legal age than driving. And as someone mentioned, different states have different ages. Being a teenager/young adult can be very confusing to a person who travels and wants to engage in "adult" activities. Another activity with a legal age limit is entering into legally binding contracts. In the UK, do young people receive all rights of adulthoods at the same age? When I read that part of GoF, my first impression was that the age limit of 17 referred specifically to the Triwizard and that the age line matched for that reason and not a generic age of adulthood. I figured that the use of the legal sounding "of age" was to impress upon the youngsters that this limitation was not to be taken lightly. After further pondering, I also see how this phrasing goes with the later explanation that entering the tournment is entering into a binding contract. But, there is a problem with that, the 14 year old Harry isn't old enough under any law I'm familiar with to enter into a binding contract. It seems odd to me that under Wizarding Law, he would be bound by such a contract unless the contract was not between him and the cup but between the school and the cup. Sirius Kase From rvotaw at i-55.com Wed Aug 28 01:41:35 2002 From: rvotaw at i-55.com (Richelle Votaw) Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 20:41:35 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] A dumb question/ Snape's child/ Molly's Memory/ Arthur Weasley References: <12f.168c36e7.2a9c8124@aol.com> Message-ID: <010801c24e34$0c234860$7aa3cdd1@istu757> No: HPFGUIDX 43261 Eloise writes: > Champions) and not Harry touching the Triwizard Cup? Or was Crouch/Moody just > too arrogant to consider the possibility that he couldn't guarantee Harry > getting there first? > It very nearly happened, didn't it? If Cedric had been less noble about the > whole thing, he alone would have been transported to the Graveyard. What > then? Well, that's an interesting problem. A few solutions. 1) As you say Moody/Crouch may not have thought of such a thing. 2) Perhaps it was rigged to activate only upon Harry's touch? Thus anything touching it would be apparated, but only if Harry too were touching it? Don't know if that's possible, but also don't know that it's not possible, so maybe. Other possibilities??? Arcum writes (on possibility of Snape having a child): > Oh, I could see it. A lot of his nastiness I see as having acrued over time. It could be good > for a few bangs, too. Suppose > Snape had a child who died as a direct result of DE activities? That > could easily have been what pushed him over to Dumbledores court. Hmm, what if the woman and unborn child were killed either by Voldemort for some stupid reason or as you say, resulting from DE activities? Snape could've kept up the front to support Voldemort, yet inside a hatred would be growing stronger all the time. now Leon says: > The only problem with the theory is that Dumbledor says in GOF that Snape > changed over from Voldemort's team well in advance of his (Voldy's) > downfall, and was a double-agent at great personal risk. Even 9 months > (assuming Lily was due at that moment, which she wasn't; and assuming Snape > could know immediately at the moment of conception - still all of that does > not count as "well in advance". Where does it say "well in advance?" Sorry, can't recall. Doesn't mean it isn't there, understand, my brain's just a bit fried. Uncmark writes: > Hagrid was expelled and became groundskeeper about 50 years before > Harry's Time (placed at 1943 by the Harry Potter Lexicon) So who was > Ogg and when did Molly and Arthur attend Hogwarts? Actually, according to Tom Riddle in the diary, and this much he should've known, I think, "Only the Transfiguration teacher, Dumbledore, seemed to think Hagrid was innocent. He persuaded Dippet to keep Hagrid on and train him as groundskeeper." Note it says *train* him as groundskeeper. I should imagine that at a place as big as Hogwarts it would take quite a while to train him. I'm also 95% sure that someplace it says assistant groundskeeper or some such thing, but can't find it now that I need to. Oh, and I also think Arthur Weasley will be MoM by the end of book 7. Or at the end will be made MoM. Just wanted to throw that in. Love those Weasleys! Well, most of them. Richelle From rpquate at earthlink.net Tue Aug 27 22:24:56 2002 From: rpquate at earthlink.net (redandgoldlion) Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 22:24:56 -0000 Subject: Fred, George, and my brother aren't bullies :-) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43262 I know many people think Fred and George are bullies. I don't think they are. Please don't take this personally; these are just my views. First I would like you all to know that I am *not* out of high school yet; I was verbally bullied throughout elementary school, though I wasn't in middle. I don't know if some of you have forgotten what it's like to not be adult, but *not* being an adult is all I've ever known, and I think you should all try very hard to remember. (No offense to anyone, as a matter of fact, I should probably follow my own advice when talking to my younger brother and cousins and try to remember what being a kid instead of a teenager is like.):-) My brother, Rick, is going into the 7th grade. We fight; we fight *a lot*. He has been known to steal my things, and steal my pet hermit crabs, break my things, hurt my feelings, etc. Did he mean to steal? Yes, indeed he did. Did the twins mean to steal Percy's badge (I don't remember where this was in canon) No question. Of course they did. Now I didn't enjoy Rick's grubby paws on my things. It was a mean of him. At the time I found *no* humor in it. Now, though, I can see it was just a joke. He meant it to bother me, sure he did, but he didn't want make me ruin me. And, by the way, I solved the problem just the same as Percy did; I chased him around the room. I was really angry, but I didn't run to Mom, I countered immature action with immature action. As for the hermit crab incident, he snuck into my room, stole it, and lost it. About a year later we found it in a dead in a closet! I was angry and upset. That was *my* pet he did that do! I was furious. He puposefully stole my pet and the result was my pet's death. Did he mean for it to die? No, he just wanted to steal it to bother me. He didn't want to *kill* the creature. Did Fred (I think it was Fred) mean to cause serious injury to Ron's puffeskin? (Is that what it's called?) No, he probably didn't. I can just see him saying to himself, "Hmm...If I steal his pet and pretend to use it as a bludger, he'll be really mad! Haha! That will teach him!" When my brother meets my friends for the first time, he treats them terribly. This *isn't* because he dislikes or hates them. He doesn't even *know* them! He takes one look at them and says to himself, "If they're *her* friends, they *can't* be nice. Do my friends and I take this personally? No. Rick=sibling, sibling=enemy. It's well known. You stick to your own. They do the same things to their siblings. If you're poor, you're friends are usually poor, and which group is your group's enemy? The rich group! If you're smart, your friends are usually smart, and you usually dislike the dumb kids. (PC, eh?-heehee) If your in Gryffindor, your friends are in Gryffindor. Who are your enemies? Slytherins like Malcolm of course! It wasn't anything personal when they hissed at him. They are enemies. Capulets vs. Montagues, Republican vs. Democrat, and Gryffindors vs. Slytherins. You have to be able to accept the fact that by merely being part of one group atomattically makes you hated in another group. I have 3 groups at friends at school. I like them all a lot. Unfortunately I *know* that one day soon two of the groups are going to push me away simply for associating with the other groups. I don't like it. I don't even think they'll mean to do it. It will just happen. It happens in the real world so I guess people like me and Malcolm just need to learn to deal with it. Once Rick released some of his "pet" crickets into my room because I told him I was going to tell Mom to make him keep his cricket in the cage. (She said if they got all over the house then he'd have to get rid of them and I kept finding them everywhere.) He meant it to really upset me. He did. I hate crickets and he knew it. It was nasty of him. He *didn't* want to cause me real harm, though. Much like when Fred turned Ron's teddybear into a spider. That was *really* mean. It was meant to be mean. Yes, I don't deny it, it was a downright terrible. My point is Fred and Rick didn't do it to be cruel, they did it for revenge. I have tried to point out the things about the twins that seem to worry people the most. Sure, these things were pretty bad, but it happens. My brother is not bully. These things weren't cruel. They were simply not-very-well-thought-out pranks.The things I have listed are some of the worst things he's ever done to me, and they *aren't* terrible. He is just a teenage boy who loves to pick on his older sister who actually, wonder of wonders, *tries* in school. I do stuff to him, he does stuff back. After all, acid lollipop *does* deserve cockroach cluster. :-) Sorry, this post was longer than intended. ~redandgoldlion~ From hp_fan16 at yahoo.com Tue Aug 27 22:33:29 2002 From: hp_fan16 at yahoo.com (hp_fan16) Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 22:33:29 -0000 Subject: meaning of "of age" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43263 > > > > > Banjoken wrote: > > I think the "of age" that Dumbledore was talking about was > specific to the tournament. 17 was the age limit the MoM set for > students who wanted to enter the tournament. It doesn't necessarily > correspond to anything else in the wizarding world. > > > > Amy said: > > If the only meaning of "of age" is "this is the age at which I > have determined you may do activity X," then it doesn't spring to the > > tongue as a useful expression for explaining who may and may not > do activity X. Imagine a family in which the girls are allowed to > > pierce their ears at age 15. That is the only significance of the > > age 15 in this family and their society. So would you ever hear > > these conversations?: > > > > 13-year-old daughter to mom: "Why can't I get my ears pierced > NOW?" > > Mom to daughter: "Because you're not of age." > > > > or > > > > Kids to dad: "Who can get their ears pierced?" > > Dad to kids: "The ones who are of age, 15 years old." > > > > Possible, but not a likely way to say it. Mom would say "because > in > > this family the rule is you may get your ears pierced when you're > > 15." Dad would say "the ones who are 15." Only if 15 meant "of > age" > > in some other context familiar to all of them would this phrase be > > likely to be used. > > Ali says: > > In the UK the phrase "coming of age", or "of age" has a > > quite specific meaning which is legally defined as at 18 years old > > (formerly 21). According to my trusty dictionary this means to > reach adult status > >snip< < > > Ali While I see Ali's and Amy's arguments as being very valid and true, I still also thought "of age" as used during the tournament, was being used as referring only to the tournament. I don't see any reason, strictly out of cannon to disprove this; therefore I also don't believe it can be used cannon evidence as to what a wizard 'adult' would be. 17 could very well be the legal 'adult' age, and as Ali said, it would enable us to have almost an entire year to see Harry's adulthood. However, I still thought, and still think unless proven otherwise, that Dumbledore's comment did not have any bearing as to weather 17 is the year a wizard is an adult. Normal- ~the ugly Veela~ Who would also like to add that she does think 17 is an important age and very well might mean adulthood, just doesn't think dumbledore necessarily implied that. From Malady579 at hotmail.com Wed Aug 28 01:01:35 2002 From: Malady579 at hotmail.com (malady579) Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 01:01:35 -0000 Subject: Hermione's Placement In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43264 All regarding the original question: >>Why was Hermione placed in Gryffindor instead of Ravenclaw?<< Some have suggested that the students are allowed to chose the house they are sorted in and the hat generally concurs. If the student who is on the three-legged stool essencially is allowed to chose the house thier placed in, then why use the sorting hat in the first place? Just seems kind of anti-fanfare really. These are 11 year old kids now. Would they really know enough about themselves to fairly place themselves beyond hearsay. If everyone got to be in the house they wanted to be in, assuming they did thier homework like Hermione or are from a wizard family and know about the house before McGonagall explains them, then the houses would be very lopsided. Some might go with thier friends or family, others might go where that cute boy/girl went, while others might want to be in the good quidditch team's house. Since we are not told what the hat says to everyone, and no one but the wearer hears the voice in thier head (which I feel the movie-that-must-not-be-named really, really screwed up), then it is hard debate how the children are sorted, but hard debated have never scared me away from imagining wonderously.... Maybe in the case with Harry, the hat actually listened to Harry's heart by way of his mind which was only to say not Slytherin purely based on the fact he did not want to have the slightest possibility of being a dark wizard. Afterall, Slytherin was not always bad. Just elitist. :) Sorry to rake that arguement up again. :P Ok, the point of this is to get back to Hermione. I disagree that she "choose" to be in Gryffindor. The sorting hat did not place Harry in Gryffindor because he chose that one. All he said was not Slytherin. So, I assume you can't go to the hat and say "hey, my dad was in Slytherin, so I will be too." Not done. Malfoy is in Slytherin for his own merits. As also in Ron in Gryffindor for his. Which brings me to the latest post on the subject. Marcus wrote: > As to Herminone's placement, it is the same deal with all the other children. I have always felt that the hat essentially contains the essense of the four founders. When a student is being sorted, the founders have a debate. The winner gets the pupil. As many things as possible goes into placement. Potential for growth and friendships. Size of placement so far. Who's been placed already. The student's preference. Personality type does play a major role, but certainly not the only role. ***cut*** I suspect it put her in Griffindor because she admires bravery and courage above all else, and we tend to emulate what we admire. < I like the idea of the founders debating. Just the image of the four founders at a card table playing poker deciding who goes where. Godric has his sword on the table for a bet, Salazar's stroking his pet snake, Helga brought her famous cookies, and Rowena's lost in a deep thoughful gaze...sorry, got carried away with the imagery...anyway... I do see why the magical sorting hat would explore other ventures in the student's mind. Kind of like the Mirror of Erised tell the view of thier heart's desire the sorting hat tells them of thier potential in heart, soul, and mind. The comment about Hermione at the chess board saying friendship, courage, and bravery are the most important I think is the most telling for this question. In all her cleverness, book smarts, and calm logic, deep down she knows where life reigns. Really is the crutch of the stories I guess. What will you do and not do for the people you love and love you? Thanks to all for the help with the question. I think I have found my answer. Melody Still seeing Salazar in fuzzy socks and a Bloody Mary....hehehe From psychchick04 at yahoo.com Wed Aug 28 02:06:18 2002 From: psychchick04 at yahoo.com (Jacqueline Hendries) Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 19:06:18 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Fawkes; Voldemort rules!? In-Reply-To: <01C24CFC.24003C60.judyshapiro@earthlink.net> Message-ID: <20020828020618.90987.qmail@web9205.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 43265 Phyllis wrote: > I think the fact that JKR tells us that "very few wizards have ever > succeeded in domesticating" the phoenix provides additional support > for my premise that Fawkes belonged to Godric Gryffindor when he > was alive. But then I wonder who owned Fawkes after Gryffindor died > but before Dumbledore obtained him (the Druidess Cliodna, perhaps? :) Then Judy said: > Good point about few wizards domesticating the phoenix, Phyllis! > I believe that Fawkes belonged to Godric Gryffindor; too. I > mentioned a while back that this would make a nice parallel between > Fawkes and Slytherin's basilisk. The victory of Harry and Fawkes > over Tom Riddle and the basilisk would then be foreshadowing of > Harry's eventual victory over Voldemort. I agree with Judy about the "war of the pets" in CoS foreshadowing the actual final battle - it's quite fitting. However, I think that this can retain its effectiveness (I hope I'm expressing this correctly) without Fawkes originally belonging to Godric Gryffindor - although the paralell is less perfect if Dumbledore is the original owner, Fawkes is still the animal that best represents Gryffindor *House*. Personally, I think the fact that "very few wizards have succeeded in domesticating" the phoneix only makes it *less* likely that Fawkes was Godric Gryffindor's originally. If they're very difficult to domesticate, they're probably also fiercely loyal to their owners, which would make it difficult to pass them on over time. Also, I think it would be fitting for Dumbledore, who enjoys Muggle sweets, to have cleverly named his phoenix after a figure from Muggle history - and Guy Fawkes was most emphatically *not* around when Godric Gryffindor was. Of course, if Fawkes *was* passed down from good wizard to good wizard, this could have some interesting possibilities. First of all though, how is it decided who he goes to when one master dies? And who has he been with between Gryffindor and Dumbledore (I like Phyllis's suggestion that the Druidess Clidonia was an owner, although I had thought that the Druids came before Gryffindor on the timeline). Something interesting to think about, anyway... ~ Aloha ===== also known as Aloha Moira Read Potters, A History - Chapter 9 is coming soon to a Schnoogle near you! www.schnoogle.com/authorLinks/Aloha_Moira/Potters_A_History __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes http://finance.yahoo.com From yrawen at ontheqt.org Wed Aug 28 02:34:16 2002 From: yrawen at ontheqt.org (yr awen) Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 22:34:16 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Fawkes; Voldemort rules!? References: <20020828020618.90987.qmail@web9205.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <003501c24e3b$682cd200$badef718@kzo.chartermi.net> No: HPFGUIDX 43266 Aloha! said: Also, I think it would be fitting for Dumbledore, who enjoys Muggle sweets, to have cleverly named his phoenix after a figure from Muggle history - and Guy Fawkes was most emphatically *not* around when Godric Gryffindor was.<<<<<<<<<< This sort of brings up the question of whether Dumbledore named him or JKR did as one of her many instances of subtle (or not-so-subtle) wordplay. 'Fawkes' as a name has been around for quite some time, basically as a Norman derivation of the Latin 'falco', at least since the 12th century, possibly before. And as JKR plays a bit loosely with circa-11th century history and etymology, who knows? I know it's a stretch, but I too like the thought of Fawkes originally belonging to Godric Gryffindor. He's associated heavily with other objects belonging to Godric, namely the sword and the Sorting Hat that he brings to Harry in CoS, which is pretty suggestive to me. Aloha: Of course, if Fawkes *was* passed down from good wizard to good wizard, this could have some interesting possibilities. First of all though, how is it decided who he goes to when one master dies? And who has he been with between Gryffindor and Dumbledore (I like Phyllis's suggestion that the Druidess Clidonia was an owner, although I had thought that the Druids came before Gryffindor on the timeline). Something interesting to think about, anyway...<<<<<<<<<< Maybe, seeing as phoenixes are difficult to domesticate, Fawkes would choose his new owner -- meaning that there might be some years after the death of his old one before he found a replacement. So, his owner wouldn't be his 'owner', per se, more like a caretaker or even a sort of ally. HF. -- www.ontheqt.org eth.pitas.com Habent sua fata libelli. /Books have their own destiny.\ + terentianus maurus + [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From ra_1013 at yahoo.com Wed Aug 28 02:30:40 2002 From: ra_1013 at yahoo.com (Andrea) Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 19:30:40 -0700 (PDT) Subject: meaning of "of age" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020828023040.74494.qmail@web10903.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 43267 --- Sirius Kase wrote: > In the US "of age" similarly means that a person isn't legally old > enough. > It normally isn't used outside of a legal context. Actually, it means that a person IS legally old enough. ;) > When I read that part of GoF, my first impression was that the age limit > of 17 referred specifically to the Triwizard and that the age line matched > for that reason and not a generic age of adulthood. My thought was that it was a general statement regarding age limits for things that he was specifically applying to the situation. ("Of age" in the US is 18 for just about everything but driving and drinking. Therefore, the 18 year old limit is often extended to non-legally binding situations where they simply want to say "adult".) My reasoning was essentially that unless 17 was a general wizarding age of consent, it seems an odd one for Dumbledore to make. Why not just say "6th and 7th years"? Why allow some 6th years to compete and not others, for a few measley months' age difference? Dumbledore himself says "it is highly unlikely that students below sixth and seventh year will be able to cope with [the pressures of the TWT]". NOT "students below age 17". So why the phrasing, unless that's a general age of adulthood? Andrea ===== "Reality is for people who lack imagination." __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes http://finance.yahoo.com From psychchick04 at yahoo.com Wed Aug 28 02:41:44 2002 From: psychchick04 at yahoo.com (Jacqueline Hendries) Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 19:41:44 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Harry's tears, a new twist In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020828024144.33910.qmail@web9208.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 43268 Mike said: > Ok, I've been following the post on Harry needing to cry and > recovery from his experiences with tears. JK Rowling has even said > there is something magical about Harry's eyes. I think were > close, but just a bit off on this predication. I hope no one has > come up with this one yet. > > The heir to Slytherin was given a special treat or power that no > other had Parselmouth. Now young Harry has that same power not > because he is the heir to Slytherin, but because some of > Voldermort's powers were transferred to him when he tried to kill > him. > > That now brings us to the heir of Gryffindor. I think we can safely > assume that Harry is the heir to Gryffindor. What special power > would be passed down for Harry to use? > > I think this is it, Harry's eyes. The healing powers are not for > Harry to mend his sole from crying. Healing powers, tears from his > eyes, might be just what JK has in store for him. The ability to > heal others with his tears the same as Fawkes can. While I think this is a lovely idea, I would be remiss not to point out that Harry got his eyes from his mum, Lily Evans, who was Muggle-born. If Harry *is* the heir of Gryffindor (and I don't think we can assume that), he is probably related through his father's side - one of the main reasons that people even think Harry could be Gryffindor's heir is that Voldemort was after Harry and James, but not Lily; it's thought that H and J are "Gryffindors" by blood, but Lily is not. I do think the idea of Harry having some magical talent for healing, aside from his DADA talents, would be a nice twist, though - and even if it's not his tears, I think he does need to have a good, cathartic cry with Molly. :) ~ Aloha ===== also known as Aloha Moira Read Potters, A History - Chapter 9 is coming soon to a Schnoogle near you! www.schnoogle.com/authorLinks/Aloha_Moira/Potters_A_History __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes http://finance.yahoo.com From siriuskase at earthlink.net Wed Aug 28 02:48:09 2002 From: siriuskase at earthlink.net (Sirius Kase) Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 22:48:09 -0400 Subject: A dumb question about portkeys/ Molly's Memory/ Arthur Weasley Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43269 Eloise writes: > Champions) and not Harry touching the Triwizard Cup? Or was Crouch/Moody just > too arrogant to consider the possibility that he couldn't guarantee Harry > getting there first? It very nearly happened, didn't it? If Cedric had been > less noble about the whole thing, he alone would have been transported to the > Graveyard. What then? Richelle Votaw responds: > Well, that's an interesting problem. A few solutions. 1) As you say > Moody/Crouch may not have thought of such a thing. 2) Perhaps it was rigged > to activate only upon Harry's touch? Thus anything touching it would be > apparated, but only if Harry too were touching it? Don't know if that's > possible, but also don't know that it's not possible, so maybe. Other > possibilities??? What's so dumb about this portkey question? Anyway, the plan as I understand it was that an evil wizard lurking at the edge of the maze would ensure nobody got to the cup before Harry. So if the dark wizard did his job, there would be no need to make the cup activated only by Harry's touch. So what would have happened if the wrong boy/girl appeared in the graveyard? There would be no spare and possibly Voldemort would have made his potion with an enemy other than Harry. It would still work for regenerating his body, he just wouldn't have the power to touch Harry and he would have had to save his "Everyone thinks this brat was my downfall" speech for another occassion. AND THEN his faithful friend at Hogwarts would owe him big time for letting him down. But that is the way Voldy does business, giving his followers enough opportunites to screw up that they are always indebted to him. Voldy uses his forgiveness as a control technique. Uncmark writes: > Hagrid was expelled and became groundskeeper about 50 years before > Harry's Time (placed at 1943 by the Harry Potter Lexicon) So who was > Ogg and when did Molly and Arthur attend Hogwarts? Richelle responds: > Actually, according to Tom Riddle in the diary, and this much he should've > known, I think, "Only the Transfiguration teacher, Dumbledore, seemed to > think Hagrid was innocent. He persuaded Dippet to keep Hagrid on and train > him as groundskeeper." > > Note it says *train* him as groundskeeper. I should imagine that at a place > as big as Hogwarts it would take quite a while to train him. I'm also 95% > sure that someplace it says assistant groundskeeper or some such thing, but > can't find it now that I need to. I agree 100%. I find it inconceivable that Dippet would have made a 12 year old head groundskeeper with no training at all. Some sort of apprenticeship would be expected. This is almost unworthy of debate. > > Oh, and I also think Arthur Weasley will be MoM by the end of book 7. Or at > the end will be made MoM. Just wanted to throw that in. Love those > Weasleys! Well, most of them. Yep, eventually. There will be a long period of time, probably most of books 5 and 6 where Arthur will be at odds with the Ministry and he will probably lose his job for awhile only to be rewarded with the job of Minister when everything gets sorted out in the end. Sirius Kase From chrisnlorrie at yahoo.com Wed Aug 28 03:06:07 2002 From: chrisnlorrie at yahoo.com (alora67) Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 03:06:07 -0000 Subject: Snape and Narcissa Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43270 Okay, hopefully this has not been discussed before. I searched and did not find anything, but then, I might not have used the correct terms to search with ;-). I have always wondered why Snape favors Draco. It cannot simply be because Draco is a Slytherin...I suppose it could, but I do not think so. Is there anyway that Snape and Narcissa could be related? Brother and sister? (they are so different in appearance, I just don't know about that one) Cousins? I am just wondering if there is some sort of familial tie there that makes Snape fond of Draco (if you can call it fond). Does someone have a theory on this? I know it isn't a big, interesting question, but it has me wondering. Alora From skelkins at attbi.com Wed Aug 28 05:38:52 2002 From: skelkins at attbi.com (ssk7882) Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 05:38:52 -0000 Subject: Twins, Toons, Humor and Instinct In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43271 Abigail wrote: > I remain convinced that *it just doesn't matter* whether F&G are > bullies, because we were never meant to analyze their actions as > deeply as we do. I'm sorry that you're not enjoying the discussion, Abigail, but really, I think it obvious that the issue does indeed matter to quite a number of people. After all, if no one considered the question of any interest, significance or relevance, then the thread would likely have died out long ago, don't you think? As for why it matters...well, we've had debates here in the past over whether or not Sirius Black suffers from PTSD. Now, what does that matter? Isn't it rather a silly discussion, when it comes right down to it? After all, the wizarding world has probably never even *heard* of PTSD. Sirius is not playing with a full deck in PoA -- that much is clear -- so why not just leave it at that? Who really cares whether he does or does not fulfill the clinical criteria of a very specific real world personality dysfunction? Well, lots of people do. Many people find that topic an interesting one because it speaks to a question of character, and questions of character happen to be of great interest to a good number of people on this list. We've also had discussions over whether or not Peter Pettigrew possesses *physical* (as opposed to moral) courage, whether or not Lupin is non-compliant, whether Hermione is gifted or merely driven, whether or not Ron and the twins are every bit as ambitious as Percy, whether Snape suffers from survivor's guilt, who was kissing Florence behind the greenhouses, and so forth. When these questions of character determine (as they often do with Snape, for example) how a character might behave himself when he is *not* in Harry's (and therefore the reader's) range of perception, then people often find them even more interesting -- perhaps in part because we realize that we'll likely never get to find out for sure. I am sorry that such character discussions bore you, but honestly, there's really very little that I can do about that. There are other threads, and if none of the topics currently on offer interests you, then you are always free to start one of your own. I would like, though, to ask why you feel that my belief that the twins are canonically depicted as bullies is symptomatic of such a great depth of analysis. A lot of people have expressed similar objections on this thread, and I've been having some real trouble understanding it. What makes my reasons for believing that they act like bullies any more "deeply analyzed" than other people's reasons for believing that they do not act like bullies? This came up in your response to the very first message that I wrote on this thread, too. I stated that I didn't much care for the twins and that I thought they were bullies, and you wrote: > You know, I've had the feeling for a long time that, as a group, we > tend to over-analize the Harry Potter books - at least past a > certain point. Since you've now reiterated this claim, I'd like to ask you about it, because I must say that I'm finding it very difficult to understand. In what way is saying, "I don't like the twins at all. I think they're bullies" over-analyzing the text? After all, how much analysis does it really take to form a gestalt impression of a couple of fictional characters? I wasn't aware that doing this was analysis at all, really. I tend to think of it as just, well, *reading.* Don't we all like or dislike certain minor characters due, in large part, to our impressions of the sort of people that they are -- impressions that we receive due to what we see them saying and doing in the text? If called upon to explain our reasons for feeling, say, that Percy is pompous, or that Ginny is shy, couldn't any of us do that by citing canon? That's what I've done on this thread. I posted once saying "I don't like 'em. I think they're bullies." And then I posted again to provide some clarification, as well as some clinical definitions, because an awful lot of people jumped in to contest my claim that the twins act like bullies. Since it seems quite *clear* to me that they are indeed depicted as rather stereotypical bullies, and since I thought that my arguments had been misunderstood, I posted a clarification. But until now, that has been the full extent of my participation in this discussion. Yet both times you have talked about "over-analysis," it has been in response to me in particular. So that does make me feel compelled to ask: in what way do you feel that I have been engaged in such terribly deep analysis? *Many* people over the course of the history of this list have discussed their feelings about the twins. So what makes it "over-analyzing" when *I* do it? The obvious explanation that leaps to mind, of course, is that people just plain don't like what I have to say, and that they therefore feel compelled to dismiss it as irrelevant because in that way they hope they can make me stop saying it. But surely that can't really be the case, can it? That would imply that people find my reading somehow *threatening.* How on earth could a simple observation about the behavior of a couple of minor characters in a work of fiction be so tremendously upsetting to a group of mature adults? Abigail wrote: > Fred and George Weasly, as the chief suppliers of comic relief in > the books, tend to be responsible for most of these actions, but I > find it hard to believe that we are meant to read any insight from > this into their character. But a good deal of the rest of your message was then taken up with explaining, in quite a lot of detail, exactly what *you* think about Fred and George! You speculated as to their motivations, and you analyzed their relationship with Percy, their feelings towards Cedric, and their feelings towards Draco Malfoy. So where did all of that come from, if it didn't come from their behavior as observed in the canon? You didn't just make it all up out of thin air, did you? No, of course not. I rather imagine that what you did was to extrapolate it from the gestalt impression that you have received of the character of the twins from the sum of all of their canonical appearances over the course of four novels -- very many of which are indeed, as you yourself have pointed out, written as comedy. Which is precisely what I did. So I'm having a hard time understanding in what way my interpretation is "over-analyzing," while your own (I assume) is not. What makes your reading less analytical than mine? What is bothering me a bit here, I think, is what I am perceiving as a decided tendency for people to believe that their own readings are somehow more genuine -- more honest, more spontaneous, more natural, more unself-conscious, more authorially sanctioned, more canonically supported -- than those of people who happen to have reached different conclusions from precisely the same canonical evidence, or than those of people who happen to have had somewhat different emotional responses to the same things. Surely we all realize that different readers do respond differently to the canon! If they didn't, then this list would be a very boring place indeed. So why must people assume that any deviation in response must be symptomatic of someone having "thought too hard" about it? Why does the assumption seem to be: "My response is spontaneous and emotional and natural. *Your* response is forced and ratiocinated and over-intellectualized?" Take humour, for example. Abigail wrote: > With almost no exception, the humor in the Harry Potter books tends > to be broad and on the slapstick side. . . . [involving] actions > which, if one looks too carefully into them, are actually quite > rude and insensitive, but when you don't think of them too much are > very funny. Well, but surely you can see that this is highly subjective? *You* may find those scenes very funny "when you don't think of them too much," but by no means everyone shares your response. In fact, wasn't that where we first came in? With Jenny describing her mother's instinctive reaction to the Toffee scene? I didn't get the impression that Jenny's mother mulled it over before she decided that the twins' behavior there had been cruel and insensitive. She didn't need to *ponder* it to feel that way, surely. From the way that Jenny described it, I had received the impression that it had been her initial instinctive response, just like laughter was your initial instinctive response. Nor, it would seem, is it even all that *unusual* an instinctive response. Debbie and Eileen both reacted negatively to the scene as well. So, for that matter, did I. It didn't make me laugh the first time that I read it. It made me cringe. But a cringe is every bit as natural and spontaneous a response as a laugh, is it not? When people don't laugh at a joke, I don't generally assume that it is because they have "looked too carefully into them," because there's just not enough *time* for that, is there, when you hear a joke? You hear the joke, and then you either laugh or you don't laugh. When people don't laugh, I always just figure that it must be because they didn't find that type of humor funny. Eileen wrote: > The ton-tongue-toffee made me feel sick, just really sick. I > couldn't laugh at all. And that was an instinctive reading, as > instinctive as any hearty guffaw at the "hilarious" situation. Yes, precisely. And that's an incredibly *visceral* response, isn't it? To feel physically sick? There's nothing at all analytical about a sense of nausea. Nausea is about as instinctive as it gets. Forcing yourself to laugh when you *don't* find something funny, now. *That* would be "over-analyzing." Humour is a notoriously subjective phenomenon. Sometimes JKR's sense of humor matches up with mine, and sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes the laughs work for me, and sometimes they fall flat. I suspect that everyone has pretty much that same experience, although which types of jokes work and which don't varies from person to person. But why would the question of whether or not the reader starts yukking it up the instant that the authorial LAUGH sign lights up be relevant to the question of whether or not we think that the twins are depicted as bullies? Surely the claim here is not that if the readers find it funny, then it can't really be bullying behavior? Surely not. I can't see how that would make sense. I mean, I personally find Crouch Jr.'s behavior throughout GoF incredibly amusing. Yet I don't claim that this means that he isn't really sadistic. I find Voldemort pretty funny in the graveyard, too. But I don't claim that this makes Voldemort a nice fellow. And not only do I find Draco's exasperated and sneering running commentary on Hagrid's classes quite entertaining as a reader, I also suspect that I would appreciate it a great deal as a by-stander. I mean, if I were a student stuck in that awful class, feeding bits of lettuce to the flobberworms, then I would *love* listening to Draco voice all of the same things that I would be thinking about what a total waste of time it was. But I still think that Draco's a mean little snob (not to mention a bully), and that Hagrid would be well within his rights and his authority to discipline him for mouthing off in class like that. So I'm not quite sure how the question of whether or not something strikes the reader as funny really relates to anything much other than...well, than to whether or not the reader happens to like or dislike certain types of humour. One argument, if I'm understanding this correctly, is that we cannot really deduce *anything* about a character's personality from a scene that is written comedically -- or perhaps this is only true if the scene is written as very *broad* comedy. Dicentra has suggested, for example, that so long as the characters involved in a scene are "Toons," then we are meant to read the characters' actual behavior in that scene as in no way significant to their actual *character.* This, too, is very difficult for me to understand. After all, a great deal of the series *is* written as rather broad comedy. The Dursleys are Roald Dahl grotesques, and their treatment of Harry is ridiculously over-the-top -- and yet we still persist in reading them as abusive guardians, and Harry himself as someone who has suffered from an abusive upbringing. The ferret-bouncing scene is a piece of slapstick comeuppance humor -- and yet we still read it (in retrospect) as a telling piece of characterization for Crouch Jr. The Fat Lady is not only figuratively but even *literally* two- dimensional -- and yet we still view the slashing of her portrait as evidence that Sirius Black is angry, violent, impulsive and dangerous. Lockhart is a cartoonish buffoon -- and yet when he threatens to leave innocent children to die, it still chills the blood. All Magic Dishwashers notwithstanding, many people do read Voldemort in the graveyard as Toon Evil Overlord posturing before all of his Toon Worthless Minions -- yet they still feel comfortable drawing certain conclusions about Voldemort's character from his behavior in that scene. JKR consistently depicts Pettigrew's fear in a rather cartoonishly overdone manner -- and yet we still view the question of what is to become of him in the Shrieking Shack as absolutely *vital* to the spiritual condition of the other characters involved. And swaggering little Draco Malfoy and his two silent henchmen are pretty toonish themselves -- yet we read them as *bullies.* Why should the twins alone be exempted from this dynamic? Even if one argues that they are themselves "Toons," don't the toonish scenes then just depict them as *toonish* bullies? The TTT scene, for example, is definitely cartoonish. It is not in the least bit realistic. It's completely exaggerated, totally over the top, with Dudley backed against the wall and clutching his backside and whimpering, and then Fred and George coming into the living room and catching sight of him there, and immediately flashing a pair of "evil grins." The entire sequence is exaggerated for comedic effect, sure, and both Dudley and the twins are *definitely* written as pure Toon in that scene. They are written as Toon Victim and Toon Bullies. I don't see how the fact that the entire scene is written as a cartoon changes at all the nature of what is actually being depicted. If anything, I would say that far from negating that depiction, the scene's exaggerated, iconic, and archetypical qualities *reinforce* it. Dicentra wrote: > I think that reading HP without taking into account that some > characters are Toons ends up distorting the story. I think that it would distort the story even more if we were to assume that only the realistically portrayed scenes have any real significance or can be assumed to convey anything about character. For one thing, if the "Toonish" scenes have no meaning that relates to the rest of the text, then what on earth are they *for?* I really don't think that the story works very well if we discount all of the toonish bits as irrelevant comic interludes, included for no other purpose but to give us all a nice laugh before we move on to the rest of the story. If that were really the case, then I don't think that the books would really be very, well, *good.* Part of what does make the books so good, IMO, is that the narrative succeeds in sliding across such a very wide spectrum of "toonishness," yet still keep the characterization and the thematic focus relatively consistent no matter where on that spectrum any given scene happens to fall. Take the immediate aftermath of TTT, for example. We've just had Toon Bullies and their prank on Toon Victim, complete with Toon Dahlesque Dursleys screaming and throwing vases at Toon Well-Meaning- But-Ineffectual Dad, who keeps trying to make things better while only succeeding in making them worse. It's very broad, over the top humor, down to flying vases and all of the shrieking. It's a Toon scene, to be sure. Then, immediately thereafter, we have Arthur Weasley coming home and berating his sons for having engaged in an action that could quite reasonably be construed as "Muggle baiting" -- and then Fred responding with an indignation that I've always read as sincerely startled. The twins *were* Muggle baiting, whether they realized it or not, and I've always read Fred's indignation as proof that they *hadn't* consciously realized what their behavior really constituted. It's an important scene too, IMO, because it will soon be followed by the Muggle Baiting at the QWC, in which plenty of wizards other than the Death Eaters themselves join. The aftermath of TTT is in some sense a prelude not only to the QWC, but also to the Penseive sequences much later on. It's one of the earliest hints of the moral darkening of the series as a whole. TTT is pure Toon, but its aftermath is not. The scene shifts "genres" there, so to speak. Yet the characters are the same *characters,* and the event being referred to is the same *event* as the one that was written as pure Toon. Frankly, I don't think that the sequence holds together at all -- it just doesn't make any narrative *sense* -- if you don't recognize that what the twins did in the Toonish sequence really *is* significant, that it really does serve as a legitimate expression of their character, that it really *matters.* It happened. It signified. It *counted.* Much of the series works in just this way, IMO. If you discount the toonish stuff, then the other stuff starts not making any sense. I just don't see how the story can hold together at all if you try to read the things that are cartoonish depicted as "not really counting," or as not relevant, or as in some other way divorced from the rest of the series. > For one thing, you don't enjoy the jokes. I don't think that enjoying jokes is really dependent on viewing the behavior of the characters as insignificant or lacking in ramification. I can get a good giggle out of Pettigrew's "I was a good pet" line in Shrieking Shack while still recognizing what is going on in that scene as fundamentally quite serious. > For another, it adds dimension to characters where none exists-- > mostly negative dimensions--so you don't enjoy the characters. Mmmm. Well, you know, Dicey, I really do take some exception to this notion that *I'm* the one who has been adding negative dimension "where none exists" to the twins here. I wasn't the one who wrote them with bullying traits. JKR was. If that dimension to their character really didn't exist, then do you honestly think that people would have become so hot and bothered by my bringing it up? Oh, no. I really don't think so. This debate as I've read it has mainly been one in which people have been arguing over what to *call* that negative dimension, or trying to excuse it, or trying to discount it, or pointing out all of the more positive dimensions which they feel mitigate it. But adding dimension "where none exists?" Oh, no. I don't think that's what's really been going on here at *all.* What I'm beginning to think is *really* going on here, actually, is that some people just don't feel that they would still be able to enjoy the twins as characters, or to find their scenes funny, or to feel personal reader affection for them anymore if they were to acknowledge out loud that the twins exhibit classic bullying behavior patterns. But I just don't know what to do about that, honestly. I really don't. I don't get it at all. Why must characters be perfect to be liked? Why must people feel compelled to defend an action *morally* just because they thought that it was funny? Can't we acknowledge that actions can still be funny even if they are not good actions? After all, sometimes things that are downright *evil* can be funny (especially to me, as I have a very black sense of humour). Can't people still enjoy characters even if they have been portrayed with some negative dimensions? It is mystifying to me. -- Elkins From skelkins at attbi.com Wed Aug 28 06:11:46 2002 From: skelkins at attbi.com (ssk7882) Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 06:11:46 -0000 Subject: Why I Dislike The Twins In-Reply-To: <002101c24cce$d9581e80$badef718@kzo.chartermi.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43272 I commented that "everyone else" likes the twins, and Debbie leapt into the fray, crying: > No! No! Everyone else *doesn't like the Twins." I don't like the > Twins. I do not like them playing jokes. I do not like them hissing > folks. I do not like them here or there. I do not like them > anywhere. I do not like them making mock. I do not like them picking lock. I do not like their gambling fix. I do not like their Toffee tricks. I do not like Canary Creams. I do not like their business schemes. I just don't *like* that Forge and Gred. I do not *like* them, Elfun Deb! Uh, yeah. Well, okay, so that last bit didn't really rhyme. It's, uh... It's *assonance.* Really, though. Why *don't* we like the twins? Debbie wrote: > I'm probably being a bit Snapelike about this, as in RL I have a > tendency to wish for people who flaunt the rules for laughs, and > gain enormous popularity for doing so, to be taken down a notch or > two. But the Twins *are* mean... Yeah, I think they're mean, too. And although I don't share Debbie's feelings about rule-breaking, it really does bother me a *lot* when people (or fictional characters, for that matter) gain popularity primarily through their habit of abusing others. But at the same time, you know, Snape is mean and abusive -- and I yet feel a great deal of affection for Snape. So it's hardly the case that meanness is, in and of itself, enough to make me dislike a character. Neither is bullying: Snape is a bully. I feel far more moral disapproval for treachery and murder than for teasing, and yet I still feel a lot more instinctive sympathy for Pettigrew than I do for the twins. And sometimes, trickery in the canon just *thrills* me. I just love the way Crouch Jr. manages to pull the wool over everyone's eyes all the way through GoF. On rereading, I was all but cheering him on -- and little Barty was, well, just plain evil. Yet, I truly did like him. So why on earth should it bug me so much when the twins get away with things, or when they trick people, or when they are unkind to others? Why the heck do I dislike them so very much? Some time ago -- quite a long time ago now, in fact -- I wrote a post in which I asked people what precisely they meant when they said that they "liked" a character. I came to the conclusion that there are a number of different things that people can mean by that. Sometimes, we mean that we simply enjoy reading about them. Sometimes we mean that we appreciate the narrative function that they fulfill. We can like characters because we identify with them -- they remind us of ourselves -- or because we associate them with other people we have known and loved. Or, we can like them because we think that we would probably enjoy their company in real life. One of the things that I hoped to point out in that message was that often, when we talk about "liking" or "disliking" a character, we are actually evaluating them by the same criteria that we apply to real people in real life -- and that if moral virtue is among those criteria at all, it is usually pretty far down on the list. The message number was 34058. This is an excerpt: This interests me in part because so much of the discussion here seems to center on the use of canonical citation to evaluate the HP characters on *moral* grounds. Evidence is presented to support or condemn characters ethically, or philosophically, or even spiritually. I strongly suspect, though, that more often than not what is really at issue is simple personal affection. We like some characters and dislike others in very much the same way, and for very much the same reasons, that we like or dislike real people; and as in real life, our reasons rarely have all that much to do with moral virtue. People generally don't choose their friends based on a strict weighing of their moral flaws against their strengths of character. (Surely we all know virtuous people whom we just can't stand to be around?) Attachments are far more often, it seems to me, formed on the basis of things like sense of humour, and temperamental compatability, and shared interests, and even shared dislikes than they are on any strict accounting of moral virtues. What worries me, I think, is that I suspect that all too often, we form our judgements about the characters based on these sorts of factors first, and only *then* go searching for evidence of their moral wrongdoings, or their hidden virtues. It's only human, I suppose: we readily forgive the people we like for precisely the same behavior that we roundly condemn in the people we loathe; my friend's Endearing Little Foible is my enemy's Horrible Great Sin. That was January, and I see that at the time it was "worrying" me. It's worrying me a bit again here now, actually. See, Jenny's original question was this: "The twins are really mean. So why do we like them so much? Or do we?" My response was: "Well, *I* don't like them. Not only are they mean, I also think they're bullies." But that wasn't really answering the question, was it? After all, just because someone is a bully doesn't mean that he is at all unlikeable (indeed, most bullies are quite popular, and you don't achieve popularity by being unlikeable). Just because someone is a bully doesn't mean that he lacks redeeming qualities. Just because someone is a bully doesn't mean that one "shouldn't" like him. HF and Catherine both shared their experience with real life Twin analogues by way of explaining why they feel such great personal affection for the twins. While Catherine's twins were not bullies, HF's RL Fred-or-George, she grudgingly conceded, was rather. She concluded, however, by writing: > But I find that I can't dismiss good qualities wholly in favor of > the bad. No. And there is absolutely no reason why you should. I'm a little bit worried here, actually, that by arguing so strenuously for my reading of the twins as the Bullies You Know, I may have given the impression that I don't believe that people *ought* to like people (real or fictional) with bullying tendencies, far less identify with them personally; or that I think that just because someone bullies, that makes them inherently evil or rotten or deserving of nothing but being shunned by all decent folk. That is not really my belief, and so it bothers me to think that I might have given that impression. Nor was it ever really my intention to persuade other people *not* to like the twins. I was most dismayed, for example, to read this, from Jo Serenadust: > In fact, when I finished it, I found that even I had come to like > the twins a little less. This was dismaying, since I'm very fond of > Fred and George as I am of all the Weasleys, so I decided after > reading all the back and forth arguements, to go back to the books > to see if I've missed some subtle undertones to the twins antics. And my feelings of unease were exacerbated when I saw that HF had signed off with: > --who politely acknowledges the power and validity of Elkins' > argument, but who will nonetheless remain unconverted and persist > in *liking* F&G. Oh, dear me. No. You know, I really *wasn't* trying to convert people to disliking F&G, although I *would* like to convince others that they behave like bullies, because I really do think it quite painfully obvious that they do. But that isn't the same thing as wanting to convince people to dislike them. The question of why different readers like or dislike certain characters is one that absolutely fascinates me, and so I suppose that also I wanted to see if I could put my finger on my own reasons for feeling about them the way that I do. But these are separate issues, and unfortunately, I did conflate them. Now I'm really wishing that I hadn't, not only because it has muddied the discussion, but also because it wasn't even all that honest. The fact that I believe the twins to be bullies does have quite a bit of *bearing* on my feeling such a strong personal dislike for them, yes. But it is not the *only* reason that I dislike them, nor do I even know if I believe that it is the most important reason. After all, I do feel affection for other canon characters who bully. I even feel affection for some characters who are downright wicked. So leaving out the twins' bullying behavior altogether for now, why *else* do I dislike them so much? What sorts of things can lead a reader to feel such a strong dislike for a fictional character? Well. We might want to consider our own personal experience with people who resemble those characters in real life. Fiction relies on the reader's ability to sense patterns, to fill in the gaps in the text with their own understanding of human nature -- understanding derived from real life observations. We know what a character is "like" not only from what the text tells us, but also from extrapolation from what the text shows us. We derive our impressions of character in part by generalizing from type. Do the twins remind us of anyone? HF, to whom I misattributed a quote, wrote: > HF *DID NOT*, but someone else did, write... AARRGH!!! Oh, man. I'm *really* sorry about that, HF. You see what happens when you try to cut and paste from a gazillion posts? Go on, then. HF: > I think I can safely say I'd be the last person to trust in the > parity of older schoolkids to keep the balance of playground power. > Partly, that's because I was the kid who hung upside down on the > monkey bars until she got a good buzz on from the blood rushing to > her head. Oh, hey, yeah, I remember you! I always wondered how you could do that for so long without being sick all over the macadam. I was that kid who was always sitting right up against the wall of the school, where the teachers could keep an eye on me, reading my book and only occasionally looking up to glare out over the crowds and entertain myself with Columbinish fantasies of bloody vengeance. Except right after it had rained, of course. *Then* I became the kid running around trying to rescue all of the stranded worms from the pavement and put them safely in the grass before Fred and George could organize all of the other kids into a "worm-stomping party." I can pretend to know HF, because I remember the kid who was always hanging upside down from the monkey bars. I *feel* that I know the twins, because I remember the kids who resembled them. I didn't like them much. > And if that's too personal a statement to make in an otherwise > psychosocial debate... the heck with it. So be it. Yes. So be it. I don't really see how we can speak *honestly* about our reasons for liking or disliking certain characters without occasionally bringing up their real life analogues. When characters remind us strongly of people we have known in real life, that has an *enormous* impact on how we view them. To refuse to acknowledge that fact just constrains the discussion, IMO. Needless to say, I had my own twins. They lived up the street from me, and were quite a few years older. Not that that ever held them back. They were downright *mean,* they were, and yet strangely, they had this reputation as kind, good-hearted, chivalrous protectors of the weak. They were indeed very nice to their younger brother and his friends, and to the other kids that they liked. In fact, they even did mentoring work with disadvantaged children! What a pair of saints! But how they treated younger kids they *didn't* like? It was impossible to get anyone to take complaints about them seriously, of course. Everyone knew, you see, that they were such good guys. Jokers sometimes, yes. But harmless. No harm in 'em. Hearts of gold, they had. Honest. One of my closest childhood friends also had two younger brothers who remind me far too much of the twins (or should I say, vice versa?). They were just as merciless as could be, and they made his life one great big ball of agonized stress, until he finally escaped them by leaving home. The twins also remind me a good deal of my third grade teacher. Boy, did everyone love him! Except for the three or four kids he regularly reduced to tears in the classroom, that is. But you know, those were just the priggish humorless kids, the ones who couldn't take a joke. Their loss. I'm sure that he was just trying to teach them to lighten up. Yeah. Sure. Right. It's a funny thing, though, see, because I was *certainly* a priggish and humorless child, and yet I was virtually *impossible* to reduce to tears -- or, for that matter, to force any response out of at all. I would just stare at him blankly until he looked away. Now surely, if anyone needed to be taught to "lighten up," it would have been me, don't you think? And yet I noticed that after a while, he stopped dealing with me at all. He just kept teasing the kids who would get visibly upset. Yup. Funny how that works. But I'm sure that he had their best interests at heart. And then there was a summer camp counsellor who didn't actually bully the kids in his care, but who did in a whole host of ways encourage bullying among them. Since he was officially the authority figure, I really didn't appreciate that. And he was a lot like the twins too. So much fun! So well-liked! So yes. The Fred and George analogues that I have known in real life certainly *do* contribute to my feelings of profound dislike for the characters. No question about it. What else can contribute to a subjective feeling of dislike for a character? Well, dislike of the narrative function that they serve is another really big one, I'd say. Oliver Wood, for example, is a bit of a flat-liner for me, not due to anything intrinsic to the character, but more because the Quidditch subplots don't interest me all that much, and that is the milieu in which he appears. I have no strong emotions one way or the other about the Quidditch scenes. Therefore, I have no strong emotions one way or the other about Oliver Wood. I simply *loathe* comeuppance humor, though. I always have, ever since earliest childhood. I can tolerate it now that I am an adult, but as a child, I detested it so profoundly that I was truly incapable of enjoying any form of fiction that utilized comeuppance humor. I would never have been able to read these books when I was a child. I don't hate it that much anymore, but it is still by far my least favorite aspect of these books, and the twins, as many have pointed out here, are often used as the author's agents of the books' slapstick comeuppance humor sequences. That is one (although unlike Abigail, I do not believe that it is the *only* one) of their narrative functions within the text. So that contributes to my sense of dislike for them as well. I don't like their narrative function; therefore, I do not like them. Sometimes readers just have plain old preferences in personality, preferences that influence their tastes both in real life companions and in fictional characters. I, for example, always prefer the sensitive and the neurotic to the callous and the Tough. I prefer the twisted to the straight, the sly to the straightforward, and the Edgy to the blunt. So this influences my tastes in characters as well. Even the downright *Evil* characters can inspire fondness in me if they happen to possess the personality traits that I favor. I love Crouch Jr., for example, who is as malicious as they come. He is *sadistic,* but that is a type of cruelty that at least requires a certain degree of sensitivity and cleverness and insight, all of which are traits that I like. Brutishness, on the other hand, I find utterly distasteful. It leaves me feeling cold and unsympathetic; I find it so completely charmless that, as weird and irrational as this may sound, the slightest hint of it in a character can instill in me feelings of profound dislike that even the most flagrant displays of *sensitive* viciousness are powerless to inspire. This is not so much a matter of morality as it is one of aesthetics. The twins aren't very witty. When they are mean to people, they are mean in blunt, direct ways. Their practical jokes are well-crafted, but they don't strike me as really all that *clever.* I mean, sweets that make you turn into an animal, or that make your tongue swell up? Dressing up and jumping out to go "boo!" at people? Wands that go all floppy? They're all just rubber chicken gags, really, aren't they? And as for their verbal humor... Eileen (with whom I really *do* sometimes disagree, you know. Honest, I do. We don't see eye to eye on the Crouch family!) gave a perfect example of their verbal humor here, in message #43155: > "It's because of you, Perce," said George seriously. "And there'll > be little flags on the bonnets, with HB on them - " > > "-for Humungous Bighead," said Fred. > > Everyone except Percy and Mrs. Weasey snorted into their puddings." > Oh yes, Percy really was just asking for that one, wasn't he? So > remarkably witty too. Yeah, that was pretty much my reader reaction as well. I rolled my eyes and thought: "Oh yes. How terribly clever." Eileen quoth: > "Then Fred said abruptly, "I've told you before, Ron, keep your > nose out if you like the shape it is." And again, yes. That's nice, isn't it? Nasty, brutish, and short. This is a place where aesthetics and morality collide. Brutishness is a *type* of aggression that I find particularly unsympathetic. I therefore may well judge it far more harshly than I judge sadism. Sometimes we like or dislike characters based on whether we think that we would enjoy their company in real life. What determines our taste in casual companions is rarely ethics. It is sense of humor, shared interests, shared dislikes. Obviously, the twins' sense of humor does nothing for me. Nor do I suspect that they would care very much for my own. They seem to believe that Percy is humorless, for example, while I see a good deal of dry wit in many of Percy's lines. I therefore suspect that they would think me humorless as well -- and vice versa. We don't share interests. The twins are interested in...well, let's see. Quidditch. Practical jokes. Gag items. And, uh, well, that's about it, really. All of those topics bore me. What sorts of topics bore the twins? Well, Percy tries to talk about the WW's safety regulations, and they make fun of him for it. They think that he's being boring. Now me, I would *much* rather talk about that sort of thing than about sports. In fact, it always rather irks me when Percy's monologues on the legal ins and outs of the WW get shut down, because I want to hear them. So there's not much common ground there. We don't share interests, we don't share likes, we don't share dislikes. That contributes to my lack of affection for them too, surely. It's hard for me to avoid the suspicion that we would not like each other much in real life, and that in turn makes it hard for me to avoid the suspicion that they'd probably be very aggressive towards me, because as far as I can tell, the twins seem to believe that simply not liking someone is grounds for abuse. They don't just ignore people who annoy them. They actually go *after* them. They think that it's okay to harass people just because they have a *personality* that they find obnoxious. That's why they tease Percy. So that makes it hard for me to like them as well. I figure they'd probably be going after *me* if I lived in their reality. And then, finally, there is a meta-textual phenomenon that probably has more to do with the depths of my feelings of dislike for these characters than any other factor. You see, the thing about charismatic bullies that makes them so incredibly infuriating is that *nobody will ever believe that they are bullies.* Everyone *except* for their victims (and maybe the one or two by-standers who have caught onto them) thinks that they are the nicest guys imaginable. Now, I had always assumed that everyone more or less read the twins the same way that I did. Certainly all of my housemates read the twins as bullies. All of my friends read the twins as bullies. My husband was never bullied as a child, and yet even *he* immediately identified the twins as bullies. He identified them with his own brother, in fact, whom he absolutely adores (as do I), but who was a bully as a child -- albeit one of those terribly useful Bullies You Do Know -- did I mention that my husband was never bullied? Yup. One man's bully is another man's bodyguard. ;-) I mean, I just figured that *everyone* read the twins as bullies. In the post-GoF evaluation within my circle, when the subject would turn to the twins, the conversation would always go pretty much along the lines of: "Oh, I know, those horrible great big bullies, aren't they just awful? And they're really getting worse, too." So I was absolutely shocked -- shocked and indeed more than a little disturbed -- when I first discovered that in fact, outside of my immediate circle, these characters are *wildly* popular. It came as a very nasty revelation, and it led me to dislike them even more, because it had the effect of actually *replicating* the charismatic bully dynamic, only now on the reader level, rather than on the character level. Not only doesn't *Harry* realize that the twins are bullies, and not only doesn't *Dumbledore* realize that the twins are bullies -- but even the *readers* don't realize that they are bullies! They actually think that they're funny! They actually think that they're cute! They actually think that they're nice! And they actually think that Percy is *asking* for it! Yes. Well, that's a dynamic that touches on quite a few hot buttons, and quite a few raw nerves as well. It does have the effect of making me feel a great deal more hostility towards the twins than I ever did *before* I encountered the fandom -- because oh, don't you see? Don't you see what's happening? They're getting away with it. They're getting away with it yet AGAIN! Debbie wrote: > Well, the Twins are not lacking in charisma. No. No, they most certainly are not. So even aside from their bullying, that's why I don't like the twins. But this raises another issue. Is it even considered *okay* to talk about ones reasons for feeling dislike for characters on this list? Is it okay to wish ill upon them? Is there some language short of profanity that is unacceptably vituperative to direct towards fictional characters in this forum? Some people have taken some umbrage with my tone on this thread. Both Pippin and Catherine registered objections to my use of the word "cads" to describe the twins. Someone else (sorry, can't remember who) protested my choice of vocabulary overall. Too harsh. Too insulting. Not nice. Um. Well, as someone who tends myself to sympathize and identify with and "like" *extremely* unpopular characters (and as the founding member of S.Y.C.O.P.H.A.N.T.S.), this accusation interests me very much because honestly, in comparison with the pure ranting and raving *abuse* that some of *my* favorite characters regularly receive on this list, words like "cad..." Well, words like that strike me as downright friendly, to tell you the truth. So I do find myself wondering if my own tendency to identify with terribly unpopular characters may have desensitized me somewhat to how other people feel when they see verbal abuse hurled at some of their own. You see, I've grown used to that. I've *had* to get used to it. I've even had the experience of declaring that I *identify* with a character, only to have the very next reply first quote my statement of personal identification, and then follow it up with a stream of vituperative language. That has happened to me more than once. I always figured that this was okay. A little bit insensitive perhaps, but still well within the bounds of okay. After all, when people do this they are abusing the *character,* right? Not me. So while it might have been nice for the people who have done this to have prefaced their screaming rant with some statement along the lines of "yes, Elkins, but I'm sure that *you're* not a..." before they just started venting, I never really considered it obligatory. I just took it as read that they were exempting me, in spite of my points of identification with these characters, from their abuse. But now I am beginning to wonder if perhaps this real/fictional distinction isn't quite as clear as I had thought that it was. HF, for example (who might want to rest assured that -- in my experience, at any rate -- most people really *don't* grow more vindictive and spiteful as they grow older), wrote: > I find it difficult to understand how you can so eloquently argue > against F&G based on their mean-spirited thuggishness and then > conclude a post that seems toned in such a way as to echo that mean- > spiritedness condemned earlier. Mean-spirited? Heh. Oh, that was nothing. Debbie once, I seem to recall, spoke with understated yet undeniable relish about the possibility that the twins' cooperation with DEs in future canon might be coerced in part by someone shoving their own Ton-Tongue Toffees down their throats. Gave me a real chuckle, that did. But forget the *twins.* You want to talk about mean-spririted, check out some of the fates that people on this list have wished on *Pettigrew* in the past! Man! Some people around here have some pretty twisted imaginations, I can tell you. All *I* said, in comparison, was that the thought of the twins Getting What's Coming To Them makes me smirk. Just like so many readers smirk -- or even laugh out loud -- when Dudley or Draco get what's coming to them. Is that the same as what the twins do? No, see. It isn't. Because there is a very big difference between wishing ill upon a fictional character, and taking hostile action against a real person. It comes down to the difference that HF described here: > I personally find it strange that I'm going to bat for the twins, > mostly because if I knew them in real life I probably wouldn't be > able to stand them. I would wish long, agonizing deaths and > unspeakable torments for them in their afterlives, and place curses > on their firstborn children. . . .Now however, I find myself > reacting... well, in a maliciously juvenile sort of way, much like > Harry. Maybe it's because F&G are very safely on the printed page, > whereas I am not, I don't know. I think that's it, really. Although, um, kind of in reverse. ;-) See, from my perspective, Fred and George are just fictional people on a page. That means that I can feel free to hate them to my heart's content: to think ill of them, to wish all manner of evils upon them, to snigger at their misfortunes and fervently hope for their bloody demise. Because they are fictional, I can wish all sorts of things upon them that I would never be able to wish as purely or as intensely or as comfortably upon someone I knew actually to be *real.* >From the twins' perspective, though (and yes, I do realize that this is, on the face of it, a rather absurd notion), people like Percy and Dudley and Quirrell and little Malcolm Baddock are *real* people. They occupy the same degree of reality. They live in the same fictional space. So the twins' attitudes towards the other canon characters strike me as significant in a way that *listmembers'* attitudes towards those same characters really just don't. You'll notice, for example, that I have never once insinuated that Jenny, say, is callous or thuggish or vindictive or mean-spirited just because she happened to find the Ton-Tongue Toffee scene funny. Jenny isn't any of those things. She's just someone who took cathartic pleasure in the "just desserts" slapstick humor of that particular scene. I didn't happen to share that reaction, but I don't think that makes me a better or a more compassionate person than Jenny at all. It just means that as readers, we have very different instinctive reactions to certain types of scenes. Similarly, I don't hold it against listmembers if they snicker at Draco getting ferret-bounced, or if they're hoping to see Snape hideously tortured before the series ends, or if they feel furious at even the *notion* that Draco might be redeemed in canon (thus avoiding the fate that they feel he so richly deserves), or if they want Pettigrew to die really *hard.* Indeed, people on this list express violent and bloody desires toward the canon characters all the time -- Draco, the Dursleys, Voldemort, and especially Wormtail come in for a lot of that treatment. In fact, I seem to remember people planning some kind of barbecue a month or so back, in which everyone was joking around about burning books, and hanging people in effigy, and things of that nature. I gather that this had something to do with readers not liking Draco Malfoy, probably because they think of him as a future member of an organization that is kin to the Nazi party, or to the Klan. You know, organizations that do Bad Things. Bad Things like burning books and forming lynch mobs. Hey. Whatever. It's okay by me. I know that none of you people are *really* book-burners, or the sort of people who form lynch mobs. I feel fairly well convinced that nobody here (well...very few, anyway) would *really* enjoy watching someone killed or horribly tortured. Not in real life. It's all just in fun, isn't it? These are fictional characters. As far as I'm concerned, serving as an outlet for those sorts of emotions is a big part of what fictional characters are *for.* I do find it interesting, though, that when I express my dislike of the twins, or when Jenny admits that she just can't stand Hagrid, people do tend to object in ways that they simply don't when others articulate similar feelings about Draco or the Dursleys or Pettigrew or Rita Skeeter or Fudge, or even really *harmless* characters, like Lavender and Parvati. It's okay not to like certain characters. It's okay to verbally abuse certain characters. It's okay to joke about fantasizing about the death and even *torture* of some characters -- a few of them characters with whom I happen to sympathize a great deal. But, boy! You really do have to watch your step when you talk about characters who happen to be *popular,* don't you? Jenny disses Hagrid, or I call the twins great big bullies, and suddenly all manner of strange accusations are coming out of the woodwork. Accusations of misreading the text. Accusations of distorting the story. Accusations of "over-analyzing." Accusations of engaging in "unconscionable" behavior. One or two "I don't want to hear your unpopular views, so why don't you just shut up already?" posts. And a couple of straight-out ad hominem attacks. Yup. I'd say that people really are held to different standards when it comes to their discussions of popular characters than they are when it comes to their discussions of unpopular characters. The relevance of this observation to the entire question of the character of the twins themselves, as well as to the question of whether or not their aggressive behavior towards a few of the less popular characters in the canon can be said to constitute "bullying behavior," is one that I will leave as an intellectual exercise for the astute reader. -- Elkins From the.gremlin at verizon.net Wed Aug 28 03:36:29 2002 From: the.gremlin at verizon.net (ats_fhc3) Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 03:36:29 -0000 Subject: Snape and Narcissa In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43273 Alora wrote: > Okay, hopefully this has not been discussed before. I searched and > did not find anything, but then, I might not have used the correct > terms to search with ;-). I have always wondered why Snape favors > Draco. It cannot simply be because Draco is a Slytherin...I suppose > it could, but I do not think so. Is there anyway that Snape and > Narcissa could be related? Brother and sister? (they are so > different in appearance, I just don't know about that one) Cousins? > I am just wondering if there is some sort of familial tie there that > makes Snape fond of Draco (if you can call it fond). Does someone > have a theory on this? I know it isn't a big, interesting question, > but it has me wondering. > > Alora After reading book 4, I always just thought it was because maybe Snape knew Lucius was a big DE. But that one, about Snape and Lucius knowing each other, was debated not too long ago. I forget what was the outcome, but I think it's because Snape was trying to appear somewhat faithful. I don't know, I don't have my books with me. Hey, I have another question. In book 2, when Dumbledore is suspended or something, and the Slytherins are talking about getting a new headmaster, what do people make of Snape's reaction when Draco said something about his father supporting Snape if he wanted to go for headmaster? I think Snape was-dare I say it-*pleased* to be considered, and by Draco and his father, nonetheless. Okay, you know what? I don't know why Snape favors Draco. He's too complex, but that's why he's my favorite. I'm just sticking with the fact that Snape is aware that Lucius is a famous DE. -Acire, who is liking this newfound interest in Snape, because it means she can post something and stop lurking. From the.gremlin at verizon.net Wed Aug 28 03:28:30 2002 From: the.gremlin at verizon.net (ats_fhc3) Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 03:28:30 -0000 Subject: Snape's child In-Reply-To: <010801c24e34$0c234860$7aa3cdd1@istu757> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43274 > Arcum writes (on possibility of Snape having a child): > > > Oh, I could see it. A lot of his nastiness I see as having acrued over > time. It could be good > for a few bangs, too. Suppose > > Snape had a child who died as a direct result of DE activities? That > > could easily have been what pushed him over to Dumbledores court. > I have actually toyed with that idea. I didn't think it had anything to back it up though. Anything solid, anyway. It could be a reason why he turned though. But see below. Richelle write: > Hmm, what if the woman and unborn child were killed either by Voldemort for > some stupid reason or as you say, resulting from DE activities? Snape > could've kept up the front to support Voldemort, yet inside a hatred would > be growing stronger all the time. > Actually, Snape IS the same age as the Marauders, and even if James and Lily had Harry pretty early, it is entirely possible that Snape could have married or had a lover or something, and had a kid the same age as Harry...hmm. Could THAT be a reason why Snape hates Harry so much? Because Harry lived, and Snape Jr. didn't? Okay, here's an off-the wall theory, my first, actually: What if Mrs. Snape and Snape Jr. died around the same time as Harry's parents, just because of Snape being an ex-DE? Especially since we think Snape was one of the spies to tip the Potters off. Perhaps Voldie found out about Snape being unfaithful, and decided to punish him? Then, if Snape had wife/lover and Snape Jr. to worry about, perhaps that's why he turned? Though that actually isn't as strong a reason as the Missus and Snape Jr. dying being what turned Snape. However, he oculd have decided that he had too much to risk? Okay, feel free to...kill my theory. ::cringes back into her computer chair:: -Acire, who is regretting more and more every day the decision to NOT pack her HP collection when deciding what to take up to college (That's okay, I'm going home to get them in Oct.). From fyredriftwood at yahoo.com Wed Aug 28 03:57:52 2002 From: fyredriftwood at yahoo.com (fyredriftwood) Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 03:57:52 -0000 Subject: Arthur Weasley In-Reply-To: <010801c24e34$0c234860$7aa3cdd1@istu757> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43275 Richellle mentioned in her post: > Oh, and I also think Arthur Weasley will be MoM by the end of book 7. Or at > the end will be made MoM. Just wanted to throw that in. Love those > Weasleys! Well, most of them. I agree that Arthur Weasley will be the MoM by the end of book 7. JK Rowling keeps emphasising the fact that the only reason why he was held back for so long was because he loves the Muggles too much. Perhaps when Lucius Malfoy is placed in the MoM when Voldy takes over, Arthur can finally finish off Malfoy once and for all and be granted that possition as a prize. You also mentioned that you loved most of the Weasleys. Which ones don't you like? I honestly don't like any of them--they're too annoying. I'm actually a Malfoy/TomRiddle/Voldy/Snape fan myself. Too many good-doing Gryffindors in that family. Cheers, --Fyre Wood Ps: I have a songfilk I want to upload to this group? Am I allowed to do so? From Arcum_Dagsson at celticwind.zzn.com Wed Aug 28 07:38:03 2002 From: Arcum_Dagsson at celticwind.zzn.com (arcum42) Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 07:38:03 -0000 Subject: Snape's child In-Reply-To: <010801c24e34$0c234860$7aa3cdd1@istu757> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43276 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Richelle Votaw" wrote: > > Arcum writes (on possibility of Snape having a child): > > > Oh, I could see it. A lot of his nastiness I see as having > > accrued over time. It could be good for a few bangs, too. > > Suppose Snape had a child who died as a direct result of > > DE activities? That could easily have been what pushed him > > over to Dumbledores court. > > Hmm, what if the woman and unborn child were killed either > by Voldemort for some stupid reason or as you say, resulting > from DE activities? Snape could've kept up the front to > support Voldemort, yet inside a hatred would be growing > stronger all the time. > > now Leon says: > > The only problem with the theory is that Dumbledore says > > in GOF that Snape changed over from Voldemort's team well > > in advance of his(Voldy's) downfall, and was a double- > > agent at great personal risk. Even 9 months (assuming Lily > > was due at that moment, which she wasn't; and assuming > > Snape could know immediately at the moment of conception - > > still all of that does not count as "well in advance". > > Where does it say "well in advance?" Sorry, can't recall. > Doesn't mean it isn't there, understand, my brain's just a > bit fried. > The only canon I can think of at the moment on it is this: "I have given evidence already on this matter," he said calmly. "Severus Snape was indeed a Death Eater. However, he rejoined our side before Lord Voldemort's downfall and turned spy for us, at great personal risk. He is now no more a Death Eater than I am." This specifies "before LV's downfall", but doesn't specify how soon before. So we could hypothetically have him find out Lily is pregnant right before finding out that James & Lily are targets, and going to Dumbledore at that point. Or, since I don't really like the timing on that, we could go to the Snape had a (Unborn?) Child theory, sans Lily. We could say, for example, that Snape knocked Florence up behind the greenhouse, and didn't tell Voldemort about it to protect her from Death Eater politics. Then she gets killed by the Death Eaters (for any of a number of possible reasons), leaving Snape with a bitterness that eventually leads him away from Voldemort. Of course, that also gives Voldemort knowledge that Snape and Florence were an item via Bertha ("She told me many things", after all...), and that, indeed would give him good reason to believe Snape has left him forever. The more I think about it, the more I like the idea, actually... --Arcum From yrawen at ontheqt.org Wed Aug 28 08:22:24 2002 From: yrawen at ontheqt.org (yr awen) Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 04:22:24 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Why I Dislike The Twins References: Message-ID: <00de01c24e6c$0a431c40$badef718@kzo.chartermi.net> No: HPFGUIDX 43277 Brain... will... not... shut... up... ::clutches head and writhes:: Elkins, snippage from #34,058: This interests me in part because so much of the discussion here seems to center on the use of canonical citation to evaluate the HP characters on *moral* grounds. Evidence is presented to support or condemn characters ethically, or philosophically, or even spiritually. I strongly suspect, though, that more often than not what is really at issue is simple personal affection. We like some characters and dislike others in very much the same way, and for very much the same reasons, that we like or dislike real people; and as in real life, our reasons rarely have all that much to do with moral virtue. What worries me, I think, is that I suspect that all too often, we form our judgements about the characters based on these sorts of factors first, and only *then* go searching for evidence of their moral wrongdoings, or their hidden virtues.<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< I'm not sure if you're referring to the "we" in the sense of general readership or HPfGU discussion (in its range from casual discussion to scholarly, informed debate.) Inevitably, I think it's a bit much to ask a general readership to sacrifice personal affection for close reading and character interpretation. On HPfGU, there's an expectation that personal affection can be backed up by canon, even of the most twisted sort, such as liking Crouch for his sadism, which is amply demonstrated :-) What follows might irritate some people who dislike textual analysis, but... oh, well. I've always felt that "interacting" with a text is an inaccurate term, because it implies the text is actively, well, acting back, which it *doesn't.* The text, if considered as being an entity separate to some degree from its author, is static; it's the reading mind reading it that takes evidence and uses it to either glorify or excoriate a character -- or to, as you say, form a proxy relationship with it. This allows for widely divergent opinions on the Twins, let's say, in which discussions canon has been pulled to either support or condemn a character on a variety of levels. It allows for a perception of empathy or lack of it in the text, whether it exists or not. And that's where I agree with you: that many times, it is possible to allow a proxy relationship with a character to color interpretation of a static, rather limited text -- especially one told from a certain point of view, that of an adolescent boy, which is neither impersonal, complete, or wholly trustworthy. Obviously in this case, the text and author cannot be separated clearly; the discussion informing the creation of the HP books fills reams of paper and reels of film. We have perceived discrepancies between what JKR *says* and what can be extrapolated from her writing -- here I'm thinking of the long and most excellent discussion back in July concerning her somewhat problematic values system with regards to class issues (which relates to some extent here.) There is a massive body of discussion, informed or otherwise, on various characters that color the reading of a text -- *that* is the interaction there, discussion between two or more parties, and that's what forces or at least suggest, re-readings. Similarly, they may simply harden various parties in their respective viewpoints. More on that later. Elkins: I'm a little bit worried here, actually, that by arguing so strenuously for my reading of the twins as the Bullies You Know, I may have given the impression that I don't believe that people *ought* to like people (real or fictional)....<<<<<<< And I *do* think this is where the discussion became... ahhh, passionate ;-) Strenuous arguing is a *good* thing, inasmuch as it can help get one's point across -- but it runs up against what shall be discussed later, and that is presenting a viewpoint differing from the majority's. Admittedly, I reacted Elkins, in expressing remorse, said: Go on, then.<<<<<< Corporal punishment? Pfft. Can I just have you writhe in self-torment for a few minutes? Elkins: Oh, hey, yeah, I remember you! I always wondered how you could do that for so long without being sick all over the macadam.<<<<<<<< It's all in suppressing the gag reflex :-) That, and knowing people will avoid you is good incentive. Yes, I was voted Most Likely To Become a Hermit in my school (just kidding -- we didn't have that, but if we did, I would have won.) I was that kid who was always sitting right up against the wall of the school, where the teachers could keep an eye on me, reading my book and only occasionally looking up to glare out over the crowds and entertain myself with Columbinish fantasies of bloody vengeance. Elkins: But this raises another issue. Is it even considered *okay* to talk about ones reasons for feeling dislike for characters on this list? Is it okay to wish ill upon them? Is there some language short of profanity that is unacceptably vituperative to direct towards fictional characters in this forum?<<<<<<<<<< Well, one would certainly hope so :-) To elaborate more along some stuff I snipped, I think it's habitual in any discussion of polarized views for the individual in the minority, or, as the case may be in some instances, the silent majority, to possess the burden of proof. I'm not saying that's just, or right, or anything, merely pointing it out. The one in the closet inevitably has to supply the justification for their views, lay out all reasons, et cetera because their belief can't lay claim to the legitimacy held by the majority. Maybe it points to an entrenched conservatism (is there any other kind?) endemic to *all* groups, online discussion forums included. From my prior experience on other groups in other fandoms, I can say that they've all reacted in ways similar to this list when touchy topics have been brought up, or when groups in the minority aired their views. Typically, the minority has had to approach their argument with far more delicacy and tact than one of the majority would, or risk being labeled a disturber of the peace, for want of a better definition, and being told to siddown and shuddup -- and that's something expected in non-messageboard society as well. Again, I'm not saying that's right or a pardonable offense. Just so we're clear on it. I'm not out to exculpate people or groups by any stretch of the imagination, mostly because I dislike the notion that dissent has to be pussyfooted and self-effacing, especially given current events and prevailing attitudes (at least where I live). Now: In the particular instance of character discussion, part of the vitriol that has run throughout this thread comes from the resentment that comes from mistaking attack on a character for an attack on the reader. It calls into question the reader's value judgments and their perception of the text -- and I think here it's important to stress *text*, which is in turn mistaken for a real-life surrogate person. For some, having their interpretation of canon questioned is far and away more worthy of their fury than having their value judgments (e.g. treating a character as "friend" or "enemy" based on the criteria they would use in establishing a relationship with a flesh-and-blood being) questioned. Vice versa applies as well, I would imagine. Some people resent both equally, depending on the degree to and manner in which they interact with the text. Yes, I admit I reacted with hostility toward Cindy, Elkins (to whom I was a bit snarky), Debbie, and others who professed their dislike of the twins. There, I said it. Some of my objections to their posts were based in different interpretations of canon scenarios; a great deal, though, as it has become obvious through the course of this thread, is personal. Given the prevailing and not-so-prevailing currents of the discussion, I view F&G with a bit more wariness generated from being exposed to alternate viewpoints on canon that I hadn't previously considered, but still like them out of personal familiarity and tolerance for their traits. And that is, I think, the way it will stand. Once again to bring in a Real Life example, I was recently at a conference listening to a panel on Margery Kempe. After the last well-reasoned and thoughtful paper was given, all semblance of academic reserve was utterly lost; once individuals ran out of long-winded citations of passages supporting their views on Margery as either a whacked-out hormonal schizophrenic or a misunderstood mystic (or whatever), they were basically reduced to furious splutterings and repetitions of "Honestly! I don't *believe*...", bitter glares in the direction of their adversaries, and what have you. I think it illustrates the difficulty -- or, perhaps, the impossibility -- of divorcing personal from academic investment in a text. One will inevitably color the other, although I think personal bias has the initial and probably more powerful advantage. After all, personal proclivity, removed from the influence of Required Reading, dictates what someone will be drawn to read, and what characters she will like or dislike. If she is so inclined, she'll pursue the text more deeply and attempt to ferret out why it is she likes a character, or dislikes a character the author is attempting to set up as sympathetic, and so on. Ultimately, though, segregating personal preference from dispassionate dispute strikes me as being a futile endeavor. But -- ah, there's always the qualifier -- we should *try* to some extent, shouldn't we? The questioning of a character, I agree, is not a questioning of the reader's character in and of itself, unless it's specifically phrased as an attack on the reader's acuity (eg. "Only an idiot would like X.") It's a fine line, though, and we've toed it many times in this thread, if not crossed it altogether. And now I think I can go to sleep. HF. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From yrawen at ontheqt.org Wed Aug 28 09:17:23 2002 From: yrawen at ontheqt.org (yr awen) Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 05:17:23 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Why I Dislike The Twins (longish addendum) References: <00de01c24e6c$0a431c40$badef718@kzo.chartermi.net> Message-ID: <00e401c24e73$b89d0920$badef718@kzo.chartermi.net> No: HPFGUIDX 43278 No, I *can't* go to bed because I have to correct part of my post I had cut out; in going back to cut & paste stuff into NotePad, I clicked the 'Send' button as opposed to the 'Cut' button, which results in the bit of cliffhanger you might find in one paragraph. Stupid HF. Stupid Outlook. This rather hefty addendum should appear as follows: Elkins: I'm a little bit worried here, actually, that by arguing so strenuously for my reading of the twins as the Bullies You Know, I may have given the impression that I don't believe that people *ought* to like people (real or fictional)....<<<<<<< And I *do* think this is where the discussion became... ahhh, passionate ;-) Strenuous arguing is a *good* thing, inasmuch as it can help get one's point across -- but it runs up against what shall be discussed later, and that is presenting a viewpoint differing from the majority's. Admittedly, I reacted [CLIFFHANGER!] *very* nastily to the mere thought that someone could so dislike the twins, who I like very much. After a bit of huffing, private raging, breaking things, etc. I was able to calm down and look at things a bit more objectively. My eventual conclusion was that, well, F&G aren't squeaky clean and shiny-new -- I never thought they were -- but my perception of them has never been of them as morally admirable beings. Similarly, my F&G-like friend was never admired for the quality of his mind, or his moral stance on issues. We found ourselves in a situation we both regarded as intolerable -- being surrounded by irritating siblings and later being snickered at in middle school -- and found that we could overcome our differences sufficiently enough to become friends and remain so. In re-evaluating my proxy relationship with the twins, as an experiment, I tried to divorce personal experience and inclination from rigorously dispassionate evaluation of the text, using canon as much as possible and extrapolating only when necessary (and then under circumstances with much soul-searching and refusal to become reminsicent and personally attached.) My conclusion is that -- not surprisingly -- the canon text is unhelpful. Reasons: 1.) Harry's POV is as far from unbiased as you're going to get, and his situation is set up in such a way as to make him and his viewpoints immediately sympathetic to the reader, thus garnering him an ally in his war against the Dursleys, Draco, Snape, and other antagonists. This has been pointed out elsewhere and the solution for it is to look specifically at the bare-bones action of certain scenarios and/or extrapolate behavioral motivation from them. 2.) Apparently, JKR has stated in interviews that canon is freighted against people such as the Dursleys, which makes evaluating them on their own merits difficult at best. To what extent this applies to other Potter antagonists, whether it's Draco, Lucius, Pettigrew, Snape, or whoever, is a little less certain; there's at least psychological explanation given for Pettigrew's action and we know Snape is something more than he appears. Draco, though... 3.) Taken as a whole, canon scenarios indicate that the twins like trouble, both getting into and out of, it (duh), but rarely give categorical, conclusive statements. Those statements are filled in by Harry's POV, which is undeniably sympathetic toward the twins, and Ron's remarks concerning their popularity. In picking through a few scenarios, I dredged up the following: a. - I can't approve of the 10TT incident because of the physical risk involved that's lightly blown over (and it's just nasty -- there's no other way around it) and the twins' bad combination of exuberant "creativity" and Machiavellian methodology. Overall, this might point to a general Weasley characteristic, little or no sense of moderation. Percy shares in it, as does Ron. Arthur and Molly might, as well. b. - The Canary Cream incident (GoF), however, does not suggest specific, mean-spirited targeting of weaker or younger students as was frequently claimed; Neville is one of the couple dozen possible people who could end up eating the cream and there's nothing in the text to suggest otherwise. c. - The lexicographical vagueness of "catcalling" (PS/SS) and "hissing" (GoF) Lavender Brown and Malcom Baddock respectively make evaluation of motive difficult, as both terms connote different things depending on the reader: "catcalling" can be a derisive hoot made by female objectifiers or an honest expression of enthusiasm that is *not* sexually-charged; "hissing" is, as Pippin pointed out, the sound appropriate to Slytherin House but is also derisive. d. - The attempted blackmailing of Bagman seems to be attempted as a last resort, according to George at the conclusion of GoF (borne out by snatches of conversation overheard by Harry and Ron), although they would probably be much better served by asking Arthur to speak with Bagman or enlisting official support -- not that, in Bagman's case, it would help. e. - Lockpicking in CoS strikes me, as I've said, as being JKR's only way to get Harry out of the Dursleys' house without bringing down the wrath of the Ministry, but remains quite in-character for the twins; conversely, their reason for getting Harry out of there does have some scrap of moral fiber in it -- and Molly agrees that Harry was in an untenable situation. f. - Hexing Draco & co. is retaliatory on the parts of *all* parties involved, the Trio included; given the utter lack of human feeling on Draco's part, and his ability to strike some very raw and painful nerves on all parts, the most dispassionate verdict I can give for myself is that, if not justified, the actions of the Trio & F&G are understandable. Stepping on Draco &c. while they were knocked out is too closely comparable to what one might call kicking a man when he's down. g. - Various pranks and inventions: some are low-brow, but to dream up some things takes genuine creativity. It may seem like a travesty of creativity to employ it creating hexed sweets and fake wands, but to quote Serendipity from Kevin Smith's Dogma, the problem with being a Muse is that "you have no say in the editorial process." Ron laments his position as their younger brother by saying F&G mess around a lot, but still get good grades -- although they don't do as well on their OWLs as their mother would have hoped. h. - The constant harassment of Percy is detrimental in the sense that all harassment is, after some point. My mental jury is still out at this point, as it's the dynamic I find I have the most trouble dissociating myself from. In my odd little family circle, I'm the straight-laced, rule-abiding, perfect know-it-all Academic -- read: Hermione -- and as such when my sisters and I were younger I was the frequent target of F&G-type teasing. My reaction in earlier posts, that Percy sets himself up for it by being a bit full of himself, is based largely on excruciatingly honest personal retrospective. I *was* a perfect know-it-all Academic, was anal-retentive and obsessed with detail, and took every opportunity I could to rub it in my sisters' collective faces. Wait... Come to think of it, I haven't changed much At any rate, I now have to wonder how my sisters managed to tolerate me as long as they did. Although I still wonder how I tolerated *them*. HF. who is now going to go and collapse, thank you very much. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From lupinesque at yahoo.com Wed Aug 28 10:05:27 2002 From: lupinesque at yahoo.com (lupinesque) Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 10:05:27 -0000 Subject: Twins, Toons, What is bullying? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43279 > Dicentra wrote: > > > I think that reading HP without taking into account that some > > characters are Toons ends up distorting the story. Elkins wrote: > I think that it would distort the story even more if we were to > assume that only the realistically portrayed scenes have any real > significance or can be assumed to convey anything about character. > > For one thing, if the "Toonish" scenes have no meaning that relates > to the rest of the text, then what on earth are they *for?* I really > don't think that the story works very well if we discount all of the > toonish bits as irrelevant comic interludes, included for no other > purpose but to give us all a nice laugh before we move on to the rest > of the story. I agree with almost everything else you wrote in this post, Elkins, but I'll quibble with this. The point is not that Toonish interludes have *no* significance and convey *nothing* about the character. The point as I read it is just that they convey *less.* Now, you may be right that this isn't the case either--I am rethinking thanks to your eloquence--but I can't help jumping in when I see a line of argument turned into something flatter than it is (a Toon perhaps). * * * * * On to bullying. I keep going over this in my head and thinking about why "bullying" does not seem right for describing the twins. I am definitely on the sensitive end of the scale when it comes to identifying bullying behavior, and though I do indeed *want* to like Fred and George (and approve of all of JKR's morality) and so fall into that tendency you identify, I'm able to sigh and say "guess JKR and I part ways on this one" on various issues, e.g. her distressingly schoolyardish inability to describe Dudley without repeating terms like "porky," "massive," "fat bottom," and "waddling." So what's going on with Fred and George? Why don't I just say "OK, they're bullies," and be done with it? I just think the word "bully" overplays the dynamic. Maybe English doesn't have the right word for it. Maybe we keep using words that are not borne out by canon, like "stomp" for what Fred and George did to Goyle and Malfoy (I still don't think it was a Nice Thing to Do, mind. But it was NOT a stomp. Imagine your foot being "stepped on" or "tread on"--the terms JKR uses--and then imagine it being stomped on. Not at all the same thing). There are a continuum of behavior, a continuum of power imbalances, and a variety of motivations to any unkind behavior, and for such behavior to be called "bullying," I need to see (1) a certain level of endangerment/damage (it has only to be very slight, in my reckoning); (2) a sufficient power imbalance between perpetrator and victim that makes it different from a fair fight; and (3) a desire to wound or wield power (i.e. accidental harm, even if it is very deadly, would not not bullying). Just to look at one of the incidents that has received the most ink: within the dynamic of the relationships among Dudley, Harry, and the twins, I see the Ton-Tongue-Toffee as righteous comeuppance, with only a mild shading of bullying. Looking at my personal criteria one by one: Damage: definitely enough to be called bullying. Dudley is humiliated, terrified, and in great physical distress. Power imbalance: tricky. At the moment, Fred and George have the upper hand; such is always the case with stealth pranks such as enchanted food. Furthermore, the power imbalance of the thin vs. the fat is in play here, especially if, as Mr. Weasley claims, they knew he was on a diet (and this must be the case; after all, Mr. Weasley knows. He must've gotten that info from the same source as F & G--a letter from Harry to Ron, most likely). However, Dudley has been systematically bullying Harry for 13 years. This is a rare opportunity for the surrogate big brothers to give him a thumping. (I hasten to add that I don't approve of corporal punishment, of revenge, or of the my-big-brothers-will-beat-you-up approach to a bully, but--my point--I *do* think that all of these things are quite distinct from bullying.) They have never met Dudley before and may never again; they are aware that Harry has to go back for a summer of torment every year and, presumably, also aware how much he dreads it. *We* know just how bad the power imbalance has been between Dudley and Harry (need I detail the pinching, beating, constant belittling, imprisonment, etc. that came from Dudley directly or indirectly for their first 10 years together?), and that the past three years have done little to correct it; for all Harry's threats of "hocus-pocus," Dudley's smirks, insults, and willingness to be alone in the room with Harry indicate that he still feels he has the upper hand. Had Harry had a pair of champions around, they'd have swung into action long ago. Now they have their chance. I think this is an overdue blow in a fair fight, not an unfair picking-on of underdog Dudley. To be precise, the fight is not fair, but it's *Dudley* who has the upper hand. He's been slugging away for 13 years with only the occasional counter-blow by Harry (Harry's pretty feisty, but Dudley has had the backing of Petunia, Vernon, a gang of friends, and apparently the school he and Harry went to); now he receives an uppercut from the big brothers. Not Nice, but not a case of the bullies picking on the underdog, not at all. Motivation: On this one we have the twins' exact words, and I believe them. "'We didn't give it to him because he was a Muggle!' Fred said indignantly"--why indignantly? Because he thinks being mean to a bully is justifiable, while bullying a Muggle is not. George: "We gave it to him because he's a great bullying git." And then the "isn't he, Harry?"--clearly, off the page, Harry has filled the twins in on some of his mistreatment by Dudley, entirely accurately; he IS a great bullying git. The Ton-Tongue Toffee skates along the border of Muggle-baiting, yes (since their Muggle victim is more terrified by it than a wizard one would be), even though I agree with Elkins that they were not cognizant of this at the time. I love her point that it is on the light end of an increasingly dark progression of wizard-on-Muggle violence portrayed in GF (not in the Pensieve, though; in chapter 27. There is nothing about attacks on Muggles in the Pensieve). I think JKR is aware of this, also; wizards who really want to do right by Muggles are going to have to be aware of subtle forms of mistreatment as well as obvious ones, and Arthur is right to upbraid the kids for taking advantage of a Muggle boy, even if that wasn't their intent. However, after all is said and done, I can only put their motivation a shade away from the "revenge" end of "revenge . . . . bullying." JMHO, Amy Z From meboriqua at aol.com Wed Aug 28 13:49:00 2002 From: meboriqua at aol.com (jenny_ravenclaw) Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 13:49:00 -0000 Subject: Harry's Good Will? (was: What is a Bully? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43280 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Sirius Kase" wrote:< >Because of Harry's history, the wizarding public is also inclined to like him and accept Dumbledore's explanations. But as the story wears on, I think that Harry is using up his store of Good Will and will eventually use up much of Dumbledore's political capital as well. I mean, how far can you go based on something you did as baby, being a sports hero, and the incredible explanations of a senile old guy who has lost whatever ability he ever had to hire good teachers and run a safe school? If Dumbledore's pet continues to leave dead and unconscious bodies in his wake, that must be troubling even if one is inclined to like Harry.> I had trouble following your point in this post, but this part truly has me confused. What are you implying about Harry here? Are you saying that he is a jerk who expects others to take up for him and spend time on his cause? Where did you find evidence in canon that makes you believe Dumbledore is senile? Do you think Harry is a murderer? Harry is a good kid. He doesn't like getting attention and what he wants more than anything is to blend in. He likes his friends, school and Quidditch. He doesn't like attention from the media or being treated differently because he is "Famous Harry Potter". He notices Dumbledore looking old and I would venture to say that Harry worries about that. My heart goes out to him because he has witnessed the murder of a classmate and was then tortured himself. I am sure his (several year) summer break will be filled with nightmares and looking over his shoulder. I don't see this as someone who is using up his "Good Will" with others or who will provoke others to tire of him. Harry never complains about the way he was raised or the fact that he has no parents. Most of the time, I would guess that no one really knows what he thinks about. As far as "using up much of Dumbledore's political capital" goes, I think Dumbledore doesn't have a choice here unless Dumbledore himself stops caring about Voldemort's comeback. In fact, I don't see this situation as necessarily being all about Harry to begin with. True, Voldemort resents and despises Harry for surviving Voldemort's wrath when he was a baby and two times at Hogwarts, but there are many others who want to see Voldemort defeated for good - with or without Harry. Harry is someone who will join the fight against Voldemort and the DEs, not someone who expects everyone to simply fight for him. --jenny from ravenclaw *********** From tabouli at unite.com.au Wed Aug 28 14:48:12 2002 From: tabouli at unite.com.au (Tabouli) Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 00:48:12 +1000 Subject: The Twins: Smells like team spirit Message-ID: <001c01c24ea2$00008de0$acc932d2@price> No: HPFGUIDX 43281 I mentioned in my last post that the Twins' behaviour, to their minds anyway, is that of a team coach. I suspect that putting this under a TBAY banner may made many people avoid it, but as what I said is related to Elkins' comments, I'll reiterate. As team coaches, Twins see their role as being tough on people. The fate of the team is far more important than the feelings of individuals. They take great pains to protect interests of the team's star player (Harry). They try to shame weak players into lifting their game in a way intended to amuse and thereby lift the morale of the rest of the team (Neville). They have no time for people letting "trivial" (i.e. non-team-related) issues such as a petrified classmate or dead pet interfere with their performance (Ginny). They come down hard on anyone they think is showing more loyalty to their own interests than they are to the team and the game (Percy). They cannot conceal their resentment at someone who defeated and thereby humiliated their team, especially when the victory was not entirely merit-based (Cedric). They cheer on their side furiously when skirmishes happen (Arthur vs Lucius), and do their best to undermine the morale of the opposition (Draco, Malcolm, etc.). I'm not saying that there's no element of wanting personal acclaim for their good humour and jokes, but I think when you look at their behaviour outside their joking role, you do see a real loyalist knight kind of attitude in them. So what attitude do people have to them? The star player, who lives under their protection and is entertained by their antics, thinks they're great. They're rebels with hearts of gold. The ordinary rank and file in the team, who admire the star greatly, also like them. Why wouldn't they? Fred and George are charismatic, fun and intensely loyal to the team, which coincides with their interests. When they see F&G hassling the Enemy, they love it. It's only being loyal to do so. The people who are less enthused are those who get the rough end of the coaches' Bludger bats. First there's the poor performers who let the side down all the time. As loyal team members, they know are are shamed by their poor performance dragging down the team, and they may well just take the coaches' jocular taunts and the other players' indulgent laughter on the chin like Neville does, understanding that their pride is being sacrificed for a Greater Good. Others (like Ron when the Twins give the map to the star player instead of their own brother) quietly resent the coach but don't voice this because the coach is above reproach. Criticising the coach is disloyalty to the team. Then there's the sensitive types whose performance is severely affected by incidents the coach dismisses also get it tough, as do those who (gasp!) put their own priorities before the coaches'. Dead pet? The coach has No Sympathy. Dead friend? You can mourn for a day or two, but I expect you to play at your best this weekend. Not behaving in a way that shows team spirit the way the coaches want it (Percy)? Expect to be cut down to size. Finally, there's the Enemy. To the coaches, team loyalty justifies all. If the enemy have the temerity to threaten the well-being or morale of the star (Dudley, Draco), they need to be flattened, and if you get a moral-boosting laugh for Our Side out of it, so much the better. Here is where we shift from the Twins to the HPFGU listmembers, via Elkins: > One of the things that I hoped to point out in that message was that often, when we talk about "liking" or "disliking" a character, we are actually evaluating them by the same criteria that we apply to real people in real life -- and that if moral virtue is among those criteria at all, it is usually pretty far down on the list. < (...) > It's only human, I suppose: we readily forgive the people we like for precisely the same behavior that we roundly condemn in the people we loathe; my friend's Endearing Little Foible is my enemy's Horrible Great Sin.< I'm seeing a few things in this BUTTERFLIES (pro-Twins) versus PRATTLESNAKES (anti-Twins) debate (see previous post for acronyms). One level is of course real life experience. People who have had bad experiences with people like Fred and George tend not to like them and perceive them as bullies. To link this to the coach metaphor, they were the butt of the jokes, the weak player, or, more likely, one of the Enemy. People whose experience of bullying is very different from the way they see F&G behaving don't. My suspicion is that some of the BUTTERFLIES perceive themselves as devoted supporters, or even members, of Harry's team (the Good Side). To the devoted supporter, criticising such loyal, dedicated coaches is heresy. It's not showing team spirit! The star of the team is Harry, and look how well they look after him! Their teasing of Neville amused them and other team members, raising morale, and was obviously not done with genuine evil intent, because the Twins and Neville are on the same side and therefore have the same interests at heart. On the other hand, the Twins owe no loyalty at all to players from the Enemy Side. If the ultimate aim is to destroy them, why bother sparing their finer feelings? They're the Enemy! If they have the temerity to threaten the morale or well-being of someone on our side, particularly the star, they Deserve Everything They Get! That's one level of analysis. The second one, however, has to do with the "over-analysing" and "reading too much into" comments. There's another, more abstract level from which you can look at JKR's people, and that is as creations. Characters in a book. From this point team loyalty is not really relevant; what's important is looking at what JKR makes her characters do and say and trying to assess it independently of their treatment of the star player, or what side they're on, or whether you like them, or whether you approve of their actions. This is the level I find most interesting. It's also the level being accused of being overanalysing. The problem seems to be that some people here are arguing on the first level, and some on the second level. One group is arguing about team loyalty, the other is arguing about character portrayal. It seems to me that the first group is fighting slurs on the good character of the loyal team coaches (how could anyone criticise people who fight for the right side, protect the star of the show and deliver justice to the enemy for their misdeeds against our players?). The second group are trying to step back from JKR's placement of the Twins on the Good Side as Harry's protectors and resident entertainers and examine their behaviour free of team bias. For my own part, I don't feel strongly enough about the Twins to don a badge, but I can happily admit to different feelings on these two levels. On a team loyalty level, sure, I appreciate the Twins' efforts to look after Harry, rescue him from the nasty Dursleys, avenge him against Draco, keeping him amused. However, on a character portrayal level, I agree with Elkins that the victims of the Twins' antics are likely to feel intimidated and bullied, and I agree with those who don't find their brand of slapstick retribution very entertaining. Tabouli. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From seusilva at uol.com.br Wed Aug 28 15:05:08 2002 From: seusilva at uol.com.br (seusilva) Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 12:05:08 -0300 Subject: Neville Puff? Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.0.20020828100807.009eeb20@pop3.norton.antivirus> No: HPFGUIDX 43282 SILVA Greetings all. Just a thought. I was reading the famous list of HP's year characters (BBC) at http://www.fictionalley.org/harryandme/ and I've noticed that: (i) The original surname of Hermione* was something like "Puck..." or "Prick..." -- this surname is crossed, and there is a "Grange.." above it. (*) not a spontaneous name. (ii) Perhaps Neville Longbottom's original surname was "Puff"; there is a "W(?)...b(o)tt..." above the crossed "Puff". Possible implication: Neville was a Huflepuff at the first stage of creation. This would explain a lot of things... his proficiency in Herbology, the difficulties of the Sorting Hat, the lack of notes after his name at the first page of Rowling's manuscript... Is there any other photo of the manuscript? seusilva at uol.com.br From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Wed Aug 28 15:30:14 2002 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (bboy_mn) Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 15:30:14 -0000 Subject: Percy - The Troubled Soul? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43283 Thoughts on Percy- I'm sure this has been talked about before. I simply can't imagine people not having done an in depth look at Percy before. But I feel compelled to a my thoughts to the arena. Frankly, I worry about Percy. We all know that he is 'Perfect Percy' (notice, that's pERfect not pREfect). Percy has set himself up to be the 'good son', the one who does everything right. Sadly, all perfectionists are doomed to failure. Even more sadly, is the more they fail at perfection, the more perfect they try to be. While I can't get too deeply into fan fiction, since it's not appropriate to this forum, I have to say that I've learned a lot about Percy by reading fan fiction. Through it, I get a deeper insight into other people's view of Percy's inner workings; of his deeper secret self. When it's not focused on the romantic/intimate aspects of life (usually, Oliver/Percy for some reason), it is usually focused on 'Percy - the Troubled Soul'. One particular story that stuck with me (moderators: I promise I'm not going to get too deeply into this) focused on Percy engaging in a secret activity referred to as 'cutting'. This is an act where psychologically troubled people relieve their stress by literally cutting themselves; literally drawing blood and making themselves feel pain. (For now, the end of my references to fan fiction). I don't see that as being to far off the beam with regard to Percy. I can see Percy with that much internal pain; I can see his soul as potentially that troubled. I do see him as a troubled soul engaged in a battle that it is impossible to win. I also see him desperately seeking approval, not just from Molly, he gets that easily, but from everyone. Most importantly from his brothers, and even MORE importantly from Fred, George, and (oddly) especially Ron. To some extent, this relates to whether Fred and George are bullying Percy. If, when Percy made Prefect, Fred and George said 'nice job', 'congratulation', and then teased Percy mercilessly when he became pompous about it, then I say no, that's not bullying. But if they went straight to the merciless teasing without the 'nice job', then they come close. It's not my intent to prolong the 'bully'/'not bully' debate. This is more about family dynamics than bullying. As I said before, perfectionism is a self-defeating effort; the more you try to do it, the less successful you are at it; perfection guarantees failure. I see Percy in the early stages of a cascade or avalanche. He seeks approval by being the 'good son', by being perfect, and when he doesn't get it, he uses the only thing he knows which is to try harder to be the 'good son'/perfect which alienates him even more from the approval he is seeking, and so the avalanche continues to build until it reaches destructive intensity. I don't think he is there yet, but I see him headed in that direction. Let's look at the Fred/George and Percy relationship. When I think of this relationship, I am reminded of Percy apparating down to breakfast every morning after he got is license, not just apparating down, but announcing it to everyone. I think this is Percy's way of begging for someone to acknowledge him; a desperate desire for some approval and attention, not from Molly, but from Fred, George, Ron, and perhaps Arthur. So, what happens? Fred and George tease him about it and that makes Percy more desperate for approval, which causes him to bring up his ability to apparate even more often, which causes F&G to tease him even more, which causes Percy to bring it up even more often which ends up driving Percy farther away from the thing he is seeking. If Fred and George had given Percy some serious acknowledgement of his accomplishment in the beginning, Percy would probably lighten up, and that would save everybody a lot of stress. Take it from someone who spent a few years being 'the good son'; it is a desperately frustrating way to live. I can see Percy lying awake at night, consciously or subconsciously, baffled by the situation. Laying awake trying to understand why things aren't working for him. He does everything right, he's good, he doesn't cause problems, he studies, he excels, he does everything right, and instead of being pulled to the center of the family and being everyone's pride and joy, he is alienated, pushed to the fringes, and for some incomprehensible reason, no one likes him. Yet, Fred and George do it all wrong, they raise hell, they don't study, they break all the rules, and everyone loves them, they get all the attention. It's the 'good son' paradox; the more right you do it, the more wrong it goes. It will drive you nuts. Now for Percy's relationship with Ron. Admittedly, I don't have a lot of direct official story line to back up what I say. Most, of it I've created with intuition and supposition, and reading volumes between the lines. I'm guessing that the greatest adventures of Ron's childhood (prior to age 11) we lead by Fred and George. While I'm sure Ron had great fun being a kid and playing with Fred and George, there is a down side. Not only do you have greater fun, but you also risk greater pain. So when things went wrong while playing with F&G, Ron probably suffered his greatest childhood pains and traumas. Take the incident where Fred(?) turned Ron's teddy bear into a spider. I'm guessing the first one on the scene to fix the problem, to change the bear back, to comfort Ron, to scold F&G, and to tell Molly what F&G had done was none other than Percy. In a sense, in those younger days, F&G were the source of adventure, and Percy was the protector and comforter. So, how is their relationship now? Now, the mere presents of Percy irritates Ron, you might even say, makes him angry. I can see Percy laying awake at night, consciously or subconsciously, trying to figure out how he went from being Ron's protector and comforter to being a source of irritation; trying to figure out how he went from hero to hated. He's trapped in the paradox; he's good, he does everything right, so how come it all goes wrong? He does what you are suppose to do, so why doesn't he get what you are suppose to get? In my fan fiction, I've written Percy as a very strong character. In my stories, through his friendship with and with the help of Harry; Percy has gone from a 'butt-kisser' to a 'butt-kicker'. He's gone from a no future lackey to being a strong respected forceful person who knows how to get things done. So, why is my fiction relevant to a discussion that should be about the story as officially written? Because it represents my view of what I think or hope will happen in the future story. I see Percy heading for a psychological crisis, and it's my hope that Harry with perhaps some help from Hermione who has already learned the lessons that Percy needs to learn, will help him to get past that, will help him out of the paradox he is trapped in, and help him to become a better and stronger person. Percy will always be Percy, just as Hermione will always be Hermione, but Hermione has change, she has realized that sometimes a greater good is more important than the rules. That's my story and I'm sticking to it. bboy_mn From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Wed Aug 28 15:53:18 2002 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (bboy_mn) Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 15:53:18 -0000 Subject: Harry's Good Will? (was: What is a Bully? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43284 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "jenny_ravenclaw" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Sirius Kase" wrote:< > Sirius Kase Originally said: > >Because of Harry's history, the wizarding public is also inclined > > to like him and accept Dumbledore's explanations. But as the > >story wears on, I think that Harry is using up his store of Good > Will and will eventually use up much of Dumbledore's political > capital as well. I mean, how far can you go based on something > you did as baby, being a sports hero, and the incredible > explanations of a senile old guy who has lost whatever ability he > ever had to hire good teachers and run a safe school? If > Dumbledore's pet continues to leave dead and unconscious bodies > in his wake, that must be troubling even if one is inclined to > like Harry.> > jenny_ravenclaw Replied: > I had trouble following your point in this post, but this part truly > has me confused. What are you implying about Harry here? Are you > saying that he is a jerk who expects others to take up for him and > spend time on his cause? Where did you find evidence in canon that > makes you believe Dumbledore is senile? Do you think Harry is a > murderer? > > Harry is a good kid. He doesn't like getting attention and what > he wants more than anything is to blend in. .... > > .....BIG EDIT .... > > --jenny from ravenclaw *********** bboy_mn Adds: I won't attempt to speak for the author, but I will give my take on what was said. First, as a reader you have direct knowledge of Harry. We as the reader even know more about Harry than his best friends; there are things he has told us, that he hasn't told them. So we view from a privilaged position. To understand Sirius Kase, you need to place yourself in the position of the average wizard who has only the legend, the media, and rumors to go on, but no direct knowledge of Harry's personality or day to day existance. From that perspective, from that base of limited information, I think Sirius Kase statements should be clearer. I mean, even Fudge who does have some direct knowledge of Harry, and has some small sense of his personality, still puts a great deal of stock in what he reads in the papers. So people on the outside with limited and frequently distorted knowledge are going to be less forgiving that people who know Harry personally. The same goes for Dumbledore, while the average wizard certainly knows who he is and probably respects him, they have very little knowledge to base that on. They don't know him personally, and the don't have direct knowledge of his beliefs or of his ability to run Hogwarts. So, their judgments can easily be swayed by limited, inaccurate, and distorted information. Those outside of the immediate circle are not going to be as forgiving or understanding as those on the inside of the circle. Just some thoughts. bboy_mn From fyredriftwood at yahoo.com Wed Aug 28 15:50:26 2002 From: fyredriftwood at yahoo.com (fyredriftwood) Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 15:50:26 -0000 Subject: Neville Puff? In-Reply-To: <5.1.1.6.0.20020828100807.009eeb20@pop3.norton.antivirus> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43285 Suesilva wrote: > I was reading the famous list of HP's year characters (BBC) at > http://www.fictionalley.org/harryandme/ and I've noticed that: (ii) Perhaps Neville Longbottom's original surname was "Puff"; there is a > "W(?)...b(o)tt..." above the crossed "Puff". Possible implication: Neville > was a Huflepuff at the first stage of creation. > This would explain a lot of things... his proficiency in Herbology, the > difficulties of the Sorting Hat, the lack of notes after his name at the > first page of Rowling's manuscript... Fyre Wood Replies: Neville's actual placement on the list is toward the bottom under "Li, Sue" or something like that. It was a tad hard to read because the scan quality wasn't that great and Rowling sort of crossed out a few of the names. The one that confuses me is where these other characteres are and why they haven't been mentioned. Perhaps they're just random characters that we will never meet--though I would like to have some of them say something once. That would be nice. Also... Did anyone notice the amount of Ravenclaws and Hufflepuffs on the list? Perhaps the theory of there being more 'Puffs and 'Claws is true. --Fyre Wood, Voldy's left hand man =) From cindysphynx at comcast.net Wed Aug 28 17:01:58 2002 From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (cindysphynx) Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 17:01:58 -0000 Subject: Why I Dislike The Twins In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43286 Elkins rapped: >I do not like them making mock. I do not like them picking lock. >I do not like their gambling fix. I do not like their Toffee >tricks. I do not like Canary Creams. I do not like their >business schemes. I just don't *like* that Forge and Gred. I do >not *like* them, Elfun Deb! OK, you guys are pretty darn good at this Dr. Seuss thing! But, uh, I . . . I hope there's no requirement that we start off our posts in the style of our favorite Dr. Seuss story. See, I like "Horton Hears A Who," but it doesn't have any good lines that would be applicable here. I mean, there's "A person's a person, no matter how small," but that doesn't seem to fit into this discussion very well, does it? Although . . . You know the Wickersham brothers, who lasso Horton's stomach with ten miles of rope, cage him and taunt him relentlessly? You know the black-bottomed bird who steals Horton's clover, and after Horton pursues her all night to the point of exhaustion, maliciously drops it into a patch of clover a hundred miles wide? You know that kangaroo (and the little kangaroo in her pouch who says, "Me, too!") who threatens the Whos with a hot steaming kettle of beezlenut oil until the Whos are forced to beg for their very lives at the top of their lungs? Bullies. Every last one of them. ;-) Man, I love that book! ******************** Elkins (wondering in Message 43,271 why some have objected to "over- analysis" of canon): > The obvious explanation that leaps to mind, of course, is that >people just plain don't like what I have to say, and that they >therefore feel compelled to dismiss it as irrelevant because in >that way they hope they can make me stop saying it. But surely >that can't really be the case, can it? That would imply that >people find my reading somehow *threatening.* How on earth could a >simple observation about the behavior of a couple of minor >characters in a work of fiction be so tremendously upsetting to a >group of mature adults? I think I might know. Maybe. Let me have a go and let's see where we wind up. Elkins, Eileen, Debbie and a few others have indicated that the twins' behavior never struck them as funny. That it was sickening to them from their first reading of the text. That they didn't find it funny for even one minute. As you all may know from my posts on this thread, I agree with them that some of the twins' behavior is bullying behavior. But I have to admit that I didn't always view it that way. Nope, not me. I found the Ton Tongue Toffee thing *hilarious* the first time I read it. And the second. And the third. As for the other behavior of the twins that is cited as bullying or mean-spirited, I didn't read it that way. I either found it amusing or I glossed over it and so didn't attach much meaning to it one way or the other. In fact, I don't think I gave the twins' behavior a second thought until I first saw the issue discussed on this list. If my memory is correct, it probably was Elkins who first raised the question of whether the twins are bullies, at least in the time I have been a member, anyway. And I still remember my reaction to her remarks at the time: Gulp! I was stunned that she read the twins the way she did, saw them as bullies, and didn't care for them much. I started to wonder if she had a point. I started to wonder what was wrong with *me* such that I didn't immediately notice the bullying issue when I read the books. After all, I wasn't a bully as a child, I always felt sorry for the bully's victims, I knew then and know now that bullying is wrong, and as a child I did what little I could to help out the victims of bullying whenever it was safe to do so (although admittedly rarely actually entering the fray on the victim's behalf). My own failure to see what Elkins saw so clearly caused me to feel a bit defensive (although, as you can see, I'm well over that feeling and have come around to Elkins' point of view). But *why* did I feel so taken aback and defensive when Elkins first raised the issue months ago? I found the twins' behavior funny. Elkins didn't. So what? I think my initial reaction might be the same reaction a person has when they laugh at certain types of off-color jokes and this is later pointed out to them. Imagine that someone tells a racist joke, and you laugh. Then someone else points out that they think the joke was racist and therefore not funny. Personally, I would feel defensive and embarrassed. Obviously, if I didn't catch on to the fact that the joke was racist ? and worse, if I found it *funny* ? this says something about *me,* doesn't it? It says that, deep down, I have some racist ideas all my very own, right? Clearly, I wasn't raised properly, as I should have caught on to the racist implications of the joke on my own, without anyone drawing my attention to them. Or my views that racism is wrong aren't as deeply held as I always believed, perhaps. I would be mortified at my lapse, and I would probably struggle to find another explanation -- any explanation -- to avoid confronting my lapse and what it might mean. So then. Back to Elkins' question. Is it threatening to hear that one's favorite characters might display some negative character traits that one had previously failed to notice? Yes, in some sense it is. Now, keep in mind that I'm not trying to dismiss the concerns and arguments of those who genuinely do not believe the twins are bullies. I'm *not* saying, "Oh, you people who like the twins and don't think they're bullies are just looking for an excuse not to confront your own lapse, and what you're saying isn't valid as a result." That's not what I'm saying at all. Like I said before, I think whether one thinks the twins are bullies is highly subjective and depends on how one interpret canon clues in light of his or her own experiences with bullying, perhaps. Reasonable minds can and do differ on the point, and I think the people who have said the twins are not bullies and those who take the opposite position make many good points and all genuinely believe in the validity of their points of view. What I am saying is that this thread has generated a lot of very thoughtful and well-reasoned replies on both sides of the issues. I would speculate, however, that if I were to kick off a discussion about how Ginny is a bully, there would not be scores of lengthy, well-reasoned replies. No, there would be scores of people who roll their eyes, ignore me completely and move on to the next topic, and there would be a couple who would take a few minutes to show me why I was totally off-base. There certainly wouldn't be a week's worth of heart-felt posts on the point. So why the tremendous interest in whether the twins are bullies? It's because, IMO, the discussion touches a nerve. It makes people uncomfortable in the same way that learning that a racist joke amused them makes them uncomfortable. Perhaps people get a little defensive, maybe a little vested in making darn clear that *they* did not laugh at bullying behavior because the twins' behavior was not, *not,* NOT bullying behavior. Because if (like me) they laughed at the twins' behavior and then can be convinced that it is bullying and mean-spirited, they will either have to change their opinion of the twins or explain how it is that someone as caring and thoughtful and fair as they are could be amused by bullying behavior. That could be why people did not just roll their eyes when they came across this bullying thread and move on to the next thread. Because when you think about it, the thread might involve something more than a garden-variety difference of opinion about canon. It's a theory, anyway. ;-) This discussion of the twins is not the first time criticism of a character has touched off controvery on the list, BTW. That same reaction, I think, is part of what could be happening when some of us start to feel uncomfortable or irritated when a list member points out the undesirable traits of some of the more beloved characters in the books. For instance, I adore Moody, and the first time someone pointed out that Real Moody behaves like a Rogue Cop, I felt a bit defensive. Civil liberties are important to me, so why weren't my police misconduct warning bells clanging loudly at Moody's behavior in the Pensieve? Maybe my beliefs about the importance of civil liberties and police misconduct aren't as deeply held as I like to claim they are. Gulp! Similarly, when Jenny and I get on a roll about Hagrid, some people become very unhappy about this. As some of you might know, I'm not a big fan of either Hagrid or Lockhart. I think both characters are not well written and are over the top. They could both benefit from having been written with more subtlety, IMO. When I say this, people are much more vociferous about voicing their disagreement with me about Hagrid than about Lockhart (and believe me, Lockhart does have his fans). Why? I'm still not sure, to tell you the truth. Why is it OK not to appreciate the way Lockhart is written but decidedly not OK to say the same thing about Hagrid? If I'm so wrong about Hagrid, why don't people just blow right past my post pointing out his many character flaws? I wonder if it is because people feel threatened somehow, perhaps for the same reason that people might feel threatened when the twins' behavior is questioned. Maybe they found Hagrid's alcohol abuse and general irresponsibility cute or endearing, and my remarks are making them question their affection for Hagrid? I still don't know. Lastly, there might be one more thing at work here. If a person reads the books and does not read this list, that person will likely remain stuck in the very same place she was when she finished the last page of GoF. If she reads this list, however, she is likely to have things pointed out that she hadn't noticed. It *does* affect how a person will read and react to future books. It certainly has affected me. In future books, I'll be keeping an eye on the twins. I'll be keeping an eye on Moody, too. And I'll be sensitive to even the slightest amount of bullying behavior from the twins or civil liberties violations from Moody. These discussions have permanently changed the way I will read and enjoy the remaining books in the series. For me, this is a good thing on balance. I have a much deeper appreciation for the books than I did before I discovered this list, and that deeper appreciation is worth the loss of enjoyment I would have obtained from my previously superficial approach to the canon. I imagine that some people don't welcome having their reading experience changed in this way. I can understand that. If JKR sticks to the same brand of humor in the next three books, future books won't be nearly as fun for me as the first four books as a direct result of the things various list members have said. I'll be laughing a lot less and wincing a lot more, I suspect. I'll be watching out for the SYCOPHANTS and cheering more for the powerless against the powerful. And who can blame me? After all ? a person's a person no matter how small. ;-) Cindy ? who thinks Dr. Seuss wrote some really convincing bullies, and who is still feeling badly for Horton in "Horton Hatches An Egg" and Mack in "Yertle The Turtle" From prefectmarcus at yahoo.com Wed Aug 28 17:44:05 2002 From: prefectmarcus at yahoo.com (prefectmarcus) Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 17:44:05 -0000 Subject: Beware samples (Re: Neville Puff?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43287 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "fyredriftwood" wrote: > Also... Did anyone notice the amount of Ravenclaws and Hufflepuffs on > the list? Perhaps the theory of there being more 'Puffs and 'Claws is > true. > > --Fyre Wood, Voldy's left hand man =) If the first ten people you meet consisted of 7 girls and 3 boys, you could assume that there are more than twice as many females in the world than males. That is obviously incorrect. The point being that we only see a fraction of the list. Marcus From christopher_g_nuttall at hotmail.com Wed Aug 28 18:03:51 2002 From: christopher_g_nuttall at hotmail.com (CHRISTOPHER NUTTALL) Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 19:03:51 +0100 Subject: The Scale of Things References: <1030384581.1391.38853.m12@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43288 Hi, All Am I the only one who has been having doubts about the scale of the Potterverse? The size of the Wizarding World and the threat of Voldemort are both contradictory. Lets start with the Wizarding World. Is it a subset of British society, in the sense that its British, not a world wide organisation? The existence of other Wizarding schools suggests that there must be a wizard (pun not intended) organisation in every county - at least most of them - and the Ministry of Magic has links with the muggle government. But for the Wizarding world to be so large, the wizards must be at least one percent of the population (roughly 0.2 million), and Hogwarts does not appear to be large enough to cater for all their children. It has been suggested that Hogwarts does not take every pupil, but they do send out invitations to muggle-borns, which suggests that the school is not exclusive. All of the wizards seem to be represented there, Malfloy's rub shoulders with Weasley's, for example. In which case, there must be other British Schools, even though canon appears to deny this. We know that Voldemort is the most powerful wizard - aside perhaps from Dumbledore - in the Wizarding World, but on what scale does he operate? Is he leading an effective rebellion, such as Oliver Cromwell did, or is he just a super-powered terrorist? People in the books were talking about him wanting to take over the Wizarding World, but can he do that. If there are 0.2 million wizards, he's out numbered heavily and all they have to do is gather together at a safe place and crush him. Can anyone explain these contradictions. Chris From olivia at rocketbandit.com Wed Aug 28 17:15:22 2002 From: olivia at rocketbandit.com (Olivia) Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 13:15:22 -0400 Subject: Wizard Radar? Message-ID: <000601c24eb6$7dca0080$9ca2e3d8@agstme.adelphia.net> No: HPFGUIDX 43289 I've been reading through the list archives which is a fascinating but time-consuming process and it reminded me to pose a question that I've been wondering about for awhile. It's been sometime since I've reread the books; I've only just taken Sorcerer's Stone off the shelf yesterday to begin again, but I can't remember this being directly addressed at any point... Is there such a thing as wizard radar? Can one wizard tell another just by looking at him? Not taking into account obvious give-aways suchas robes, wands, bad attempts at Muggle dress, Harry's scar, Dumbledore's hair/beard, Mad-Eye's magical eye, etc. Is there anyway for them to instantly recognize another wizard? And vice-versa? Could a wizard spot a Muggle in Wizard robes? For example, say there are three men in a room all dressed in ordinary, everyday Muggle clothes. Man A and B are wizards. Man C is a Muggle. Would Man A and B recognize each other? Would Man A and/or B recognize that Man C is just a Muggle? As I said, I haven't come across this yet. If someone has or it's been discussed, please do point me in the right direction. Olivia From crussell at arkansas.net Wed Aug 28 17:55:11 2002 From: crussell at arkansas.net (bugaloo37) Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 17:55:11 -0000 Subject: Why I dislike the twins Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43290 I have been reading virtually all the messages concerning the twin's behavior and quite honestly I do not understand all the controversy. When I read books 1-4, I honestly did not pay that much attention to the twins antics-unless in some way it directly affected Harry-such as the Toffee incident or the incident on the train concerning Malfoy in book 4. But even then I viewed them very simply as revenge- oriented pranks that did not effect the main plot significantly. Perhaps, I am simply not understanding how the twins behavior has or will have in the future any long-term effects on Harry's safety or the ultimate defeat of Voldemort. I have learned as a reader to discern what points are significant in any given fiction and which are merely what I call "fill-ins" or "distractions" that allow the reader to relax his brain. I view the HP series as being mystery novels-in that we are given certain clues-some obvious foreshadowings- some harder to decipher. I will readily admit that I do overlook clues and am suprised when they are pointed out. So I guess what I am saying here is if someone has come up with any significant way in which the twins behavior may effect the HP series in the long run- please let me know. bugaloo37- who by the way neither likes or dislikes the twins-no offense intended From lupinesque at yahoo.com Wed Aug 28 18:41:34 2002 From: lupinesque at yahoo.com (lupinesque) Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 18:41:34 -0000 Subject: The Scale of Things In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43291 Chris wrote: > We know that Voldemort is the most powerful wizard - aside perhaps from > Dumbledore - in the Wizarding World, but on what scale does he operate? Is > he > leading an effective rebellion, such as Oliver Cromwell did, or is he just a > super-powered terrorist? People in the books were talking about him wanting > to > take over the Wizarding World, but can he do that. If there are 0.2 million > wizards, he's out numbered heavily and all they have to do is gather > together > at a safe place and crush him. Can anyone explain these contradictions. I'm of the opinion that the previous "Voldemort War" was indeed more like a terrorist operation than either a successful rebellion or an all-out war, and for now, his return seems to be on the same model: a few dozen devoted followers at most, other sympathizers out in the WW at first, but not a widespread or popular movement by any means. However, even if this is right, being outnumbered doesn't mean being less dangerous. Voldemort has powers (think: weapons) that no one else possesses, possibly not even Dumbledore. And he has powers that Dumbledore may have but wouldn't use, according to PS/SS 1. It's rather like one person crouched in his hideout with a working neutron bomb--there could be any number of people allied against him, but numbers don't give them much of an advantage since he has the power to kill them all with the flick of a switch, and they can't use the same weapon against him without wreaking unacceptable damage. We don't know much about Voldemort's powers--I'm sure we'll learn, and also learn how they can be overcome--but we know enough about magic in JKR's universe to imagine that magical powers may not be so easily overcome that an army even of millions can necessarily defeat one man. Amy Z From jferer at yahoo.com Wed Aug 28 18:57:39 2002 From: jferer at yahoo.com (jferer) Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 18:57:39 -0000 Subject: Fred and George: The Bullies You Do Know In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43292 Lucky_kari:"I went through hell with bullies at my very toney Hogwarts-like private school. Here is their profile. - Rich. Upper-middle class. Well-dressed. - Popular with students and teachers. - High academic achievers. - Physically unimposing. - Overly sentimental in regards to animals and little children, while completely unempathetic to other weaker children. - Cliqueish and elitist." I guess that fits in with the 'overbearing' shorthand of the dictionary definition, but it doesn't relate in any way to Fred and George, except the 'popular' part. You didn't mean to suggest, I'm sure, that being popular is a sign of a bully. Believe me, I know what you're talking about. I lived until relatively recently in Greenwich, Connecticut, which I have described to people who don't know it as "a 90% Slytherin" town. lucky_kari:"And Fred and George Weasley have always reminded me very much of them in some (though not all) of their attributes. They were the bullies that You Do Know, as Elkins put it, except I was one of the few who didn't." I'm afraid I don't see it. I think it's a function of the era we live in. Mark Twain would have understood Fred and George perfectly, throwbacks to an era that wasn't as sensitive as this one. They are just, by their lights; I don't believe they prey on the weak (we've never seen it in canon), and they don't go out of their way to make others feel bad. I'm sure they see other people as people, not objects. As bb_mn said, they'd be more likely to beat a kid sticking a kid's head in a toilet than to do the sticking themselves. Their home and family certainly aren't predictors of bullying behavior; quite the opposite. Being twins and growing up with all those brothers did put a little more rough-and-tumble in their personalities than they might otherwise have had. Am I saying Fred and George are perfect? Heck, no. They can be mighty inconsiderate of what their shenanigans do to the psyches and blood pressure of their parents and teachers. They sure aren't very sensitive or particularly introspective, to say the least, so they can be guilty of thoughtlessness. They'd be the last to say something cruel or cutting, though. it just wouldn't occur to them. I'm just saying they aren't bullies. From prefectmarcus at yahoo.com Wed Aug 28 19:02:42 2002 From: prefectmarcus at yahoo.com (prefectmarcus) Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 19:02:42 -0000 Subject: The Scale of Things In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43293 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "CHRISTOPHER NUTTALL" wrote: > But for the Wizarding world to > be > so large, the wizards must be at least one percent of the population > (roughly > 0.2 million), and Hogwarts does not appear to be large enough to cater for > all > their children. > Chris I once did some quick number extrapulations. Rowling said there are about one thousand students at Hogwarts. (Yes, yes, the books don't tally, but I'm not going there for now.) There are seven grades so that means there about about 150 students per grade. In today's culture, there are about 200 people in the population for every 1 student in a given year. Now assuming that wizards live twice as long as muggles, make that 400 to 1. That leaves a grand total of 60,000 wizards in England. That is only .3 of one percent or 3 in every thousand Britians are wizards. However you cook the numbers, there aren't very many. However there is enough to be orginized. Mark From prefectmarcus at yahoo.com Wed Aug 28 19:51:18 2002 From: prefectmarcus at yahoo.com (prefectmarcus) Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 19:51:18 -0000 Subject: Wizard Radar? In-Reply-To: <000601c24eb6$7dca0080$9ca2e3d8@agstme.adelphia.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43294 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Olivia" wrote: > Is there such a thing as wizard radar? Can one wizard tell another just by > looking at him? Not taking into account obvious give-aways suchas robes, > wands, bad attempts at Muggle dress, Harry's scar, Dumbledore's hair/beard, > Mad-Eye's magical eye, etc. Is there anyway for them to instantly recognize > another wizard? And vice-versa? Could a wizard spot a Muggle in Wizard > robes? > Olivia Good question! As far as canon is concerned, I don't think it is addressed. The one case I can think of is Mr. Weasley recognizing Mr. and Mrs. Granger as muggles when they were at Gringotts in CoS. Hermione might of introduced them "off-camera", but we don't know. The other case is the campground keeper in GoF. Harry recognized him immediately ***because of his clothes***. IIRC, he also mentioned that Mr. Crouch was about the only one that looked like a true muggle. So I think it probably has to do with clothing and other details. Also, don't forget how small the wizard population is. As in every small community, everybody knows everybody else. Marcus From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Aug 28 19:52:49 2002 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 19:52:49 -0000 Subject: Why I Dislike The Twins In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43295 Elkins wrote: >>Some people have taken some umbrage with my tone on this thread. Both Pippin and Catherine registered objections to my use of the word "cads" to describe the twins. << I did? IIRC, I objected to the word "bullies". "Cads" is much more suitable, IMO, if you are looking for a derogatory term for the Terrible Two. A cad, according to my dictionary, is "unprincipled or ungentlemanly," which I find much more descriptive of the Twins in their worst moments, such as the end of GoF, or contemplating the blackmail of Bagman. They do put Percy at his wits' end, but unlike Elkins's friend, Percy has not been driven away from his home, nor is there any indication that he'd prefer to live elsewhere. Except perhaps at the Office. But I took that as more an indication of incipient workaholism than Twinavoidance. He seems to be just as obsessed with his job after the Twins go back to school. And like others, I have yet to be persuaded that the Twins target anyone, inside or outside of their "magic circle," whom they perceive to be of less account than themselves, except for their behavior at the end of GoF which I will get to in a moment. When they are incensed with Harry in PS/SS, do they tease him or play pranks on him, or try to get him into further trouble? No...they just refuse to speak to him. I admit that the twins can be pretty obnoxious, but I resist calling them bullies, because if they are bullies, then what do we call Draco, Dudley and Snape? As Shaun points out in his post, the Twins may be bullies in some technical sense, but they aren't bullies of the same order as DDS, and they require a different kind of intervention, which, in fact, they usually get. It would be a pretty lame anti-bully intervention program that cracked down on F&G and let Draco and Snape get away with everything...which is, of course, exactly what's happening. Bugaloo asked: >>So I guess what I am saying here is if someone has come up with any significant way in which the twins behavior may effect the HP series in the long run-please let me know.<< I think it relates to the theme, introduced by Sirius, that some of the people who were fighting Voldemort resorted to the same methods that he used, even though they would never support the Dark Arts. I was startled when Dumbledore "placed a foot underneath Moody's unconscious body and kicked him over onto his back." GoF ch 35) That might have been only prudent since a downed enemy could be faking it, but it was also a gesture of contempt. This is the first scene in which Harry understands why Dumbledore is feared, and it also shows us that even Dumbledore isn't immune to the sort of temptation Sirius was talking about. Harry will probably find himself confronted with choices about how much force he is justified in using. Nonetheless, I don't think Dumbledore would have approved of what the Twins did on the train. A simple "what's going on here" would probably have been enough to cow Draco and his goons. (Draco has yet to stick to his wands when outnumbered.) I see the readers hesitating between the values of peacetime and wartime, and forced to ponder the difference between them. Dumbledore's gesture looks very different depending on whether we regard him as a soldier or a policeman. Similarly, those who defend the Twins' action feel that since Draco declared himself for Voldemort, violence against him is justified. The train scene raises the question of who ought to be regarded as a non-combatant. In a society where everyone over the age of ten goes armed, should we expect teenagers to be treated as civilians? Pippin From dicentra at xmission.com Wed Aug 28 20:02:56 2002 From: dicentra at xmission.com (dicentra63) Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 20:02:56 -0000 Subject: Twins, Toons, Humor and Instinct In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43296 First, let me preface this with some clarifications. I wrote my initial "Toon" analysis of the twins waaaaay back last Friday [43083]. Two hundred messages later, it seems that some people [both who agree and disagree with me] have inadvertently misread what I was saying and have assumed I meant things I didn't mean. I'll take the responsibility for that: a good essay shouldn't be so easy to misread, and obviously I didn't craft it well enough. So let me clarify my stance a bit: 1) I'm not saying that the twins' characters are being overanalyzed, nor that those who say they are bullies are making much ado about nothing, nor that they're being hypersensitive to the twins' actions. I only mean to say that "the twins are bullies" is not my preferred reading. To the extent that my words implied anything else (and going back I can see that they did) I retract my statements and offer apologies. 2) By calling the twins "Toons" I don't mean to say that what they do doesn't matter. It does matter, or JKR wouldn't put them in. We can disagree about what their level of significance is, but I believe they are significant nonetheless. 3) I find Elkins's arguments, especially her point-by-point analysis of bullying behavior, very compelling. She's got a point. (She always has a point, BTW.) Her essays help me clarify my thoughts and show me things I didn't see in the first place. So. Back to our show... Elkins: One argument, if I'm understanding this correctly, is that we cannot really deduce *anything* about a character's personality from a scene that is written comedically -- or perhaps this is only true if the scene is written as very *broad* comedy. Dicentra has suggested, for example, that so long as the characters involved in a scene are "Toons," then we are meant to read the characters' actual behavior in that scene as in no way significant to their actual *character.* Dicentra: I didn't mean to argue this point this way, and again I take responsibility for being unclear. The core of the "Toon" argument is not that the cartoonish scenes are somehow apart from the rest of the text. It is rather that the twins engage in behavior that has the *form* of bullying, but not the *substance*. It's mock violence instead of real violence. The twins themselves, however, aren't the ones who decided to make it mock violence--JKR did. What *should* hurt someone doesn't, and it doesn't because JKR is using the conventions of cartoons in some instances to Avert Danger, thereby creating comedy. Toons cannot get hurt, nor can they land any real blows. For example, the Dursleys are most definitely Toons--they're caricatures--but Harry is not. By all rights, Harry should be a psychiatrist's gold mine after spending his formative years with them. Either he should esteem himself the most worthless person in the world (having bought into the Dursleys' opinion of him) or he should be a vessel of rage, engaging in self-destructive behavior or ready to go postal on them at any moment. Or he should have spent his life in the big Egyptian river. (It's a bad pun, trust me.) But he's not messed up at all. He's not terribly insecure, not socially inept, not violent or depressed or out-of-touch or anything. He hates the Dursleys, he regards them with utmost contempt, it cheeses him off when they confine him or restrict him in any way, but he doesn't seem to be *hurt* by it. He doesn't seem to take it personally, and he's not afraid of them. He seems to regard the Dursleys as Toons, too: idiot buffoons that he has to endure, but who can't really do anything to him except annoy him. The only time they seem to be able to mess with him is when they insult his parents, but Harry's upset when *anyone* insults his parents. Some have attributed this to Wizard Toughness, and it might be the case, but the truth is Harry *can* be hurt by ordinary things, such as when Ron didn't believe him in GoF, or when Cho rejected him, or when Lupin resigned. So the Dursleys' failure to damage Harry is due to their Toonishness. They just can't affect Harry the way real people can. On to the twins. Elkins's analysis shows that they engage in bullying-like behavior. But do they manage to actually *hurt* anyone? Do their actions have real consequences or do they not? Because if the answer is not, we have comedy, not violence. And if it isn't real violence, it's hard for me to say that the twins are bullies. The TTToffee episode, as Elkins acknowledges, is a Toonish episode, done over-the-top and with all the conventions of slap-stick comedy. Whether Dudley is actually hurt by the episode is a matter of debate, but I come down on the side that he can't be hurt because he's a Toon. He doesn't seem to have enough feelings or insight or introspection to be *realistically* affected by the episode, except for having one more reason to mistrust wizards. As for Arthur and Molly's reaction to the episode, they don't see the Dursleys as Toons. They see them as ordinary muggles, and they see the twins' behavior as muggle-baiting, regardless of whether Dudley can be hurt or not. They're hypersensitized to muggle-baiting, having seen Voldemort and his followers engage in just that kind of behavior. Arthur's career is based on the concept that muggle-baiting is wrong wrong wrong. The twins don't see it that way because they're too young to remember Voldemort. If they had witnessed violent and cruel episodes of muggle-baiting, they would probably be more circumspect in their dealings with the Dursleys, avoiding all *appearance* of muggle-baiting (at least I would hope so). The TTToffee episode, as far as I can tell, does not reveal the twins as bullies. I think that Elkins' own observation is much more compelling: it's a foreshadowing of something much more sinister. It seems that this funny little play-within-a-play is meant to stand in stark contrast to the events at the QWC, because *then* some real harm is being done, whereas in the TTToffee incident it isn't. The TTToffee incident therefore functions like the cartoon before the serious drama--like they used to do at the movies--loosening up the audience and giving people time to get popcorn. Only this time the cartoon points to the serious drama; the fake violence mimics the real violence, making the real violence seem just that much more shocking. Dang, that JKR is good. I really need to study up on the comedy and see how it relates to the drama. Oh, to have that kind of time. --Dicentra, who will call the twins bullies as soon as JKR has them land real blows From Ali at zymurgy.org Wed Aug 28 20:03:01 2002 From: Ali at zymurgy.org (alhewison) Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 20:03:01 -0000 Subject: Why I Dislike The Twins In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43297 I've written this post a couple of times now, and discarded it, but here is my latest attempt:- Really, this follows from Cindy's assessment on why the discussion re the twins as bullies became a bit shall we say "empassioned" Whilst I was reading the posts I seemed to agree with those who felt that the twins were bullies, and then immediately afterwards with those who thought otherwise (my pre-debate position). Now I hover undecided between the two groups. What is certainly true though is that I will search far more for the twins motivation in future books than I would have done had this discussion not taken place. I don't have a really strong opinion on the twins. Some of their behaviour might seem to have "bullying" as an underlying characteristic. I can accept Shaun's definition of them as charismatic bullies. But I *enjoyed* many of their scenes. Even if I was left feeling uncomfortable over the TTT incident I still liked Harry seeing his tormentor getting his just deserts. I didn't like the way the twins treated Malfoy and Co - that did somehow breach a code of ethics or two - but that didn't prevent me stiffling a snigger. My point? I don't like bullying at all. I've seen victims, I've been a victim (in a relatively mild sense) of bullying in the workplace. I know it is wrong - how then can I like characters who show this type of behaviour as a defining characteristic? You're right, it certainly made me feel defensive. It also made be feel like a hypocrite. I, who will happily get on my high horse and defend my high moral standards and libertarian values can *enjoy* unsporting behaviour because it is at the hands of "goodies". Perhaps I don't deeply believe any of the causes or values I claim to espouse... This is where the idea of having 2 plains of reading, comes in handy - the reading in which we look at the Potterverse v. RL has led me to some uncomfortable feelings; the reading of Potterverse as fictional characters allows me to enjoy the twins as the buffoons *I think* JKR intended us to see. Here again I'm probably being hypocritical, changing between RL and fantasy at will. At the end of the day though, I don't think that anyone has done me a disservice by forcing me to re-evaluate my beliefs - quite the reverse. I for one have not been bored by this discussion, and I wonder if I'm alone in taking the subject of bullying outside the Potterverse and back into the "Real" World I inhabit most of the time? I also agree with Cindy on the affect that this group has had on my appreciation of the books. Sanpe fans don't flame me, but before I joined this group I thought Snape was foul, evil, loathsome. I had become convinced about LOLLIPOPS (of course I didn't call it that) but I had totally failed to see the layers of his character that now seem so obvious. As a matter of fact, I still don't like him, but I now find him one of the most interesting characters, and look forward to his back story being fully developed. Ali (who promised her husband this post would only take 5 minutes, woops!) From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Wed Aug 28 20:09:03 2002 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (bboy_mn) Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 20:09:03 -0000 Subject: The Scale of Things In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43298 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "prefectmarcus" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "CHRISTOPHER NUTTALL" > christopher_g_nuttall wrote: > > But for the Wizarding world to be so large, the wizards must > > be at least one percent of the population (roughly 0.2 million), > > and Hogwarts does not appear to be large enough to cater for > > all their children. > > > Chris > > I once did some quick number extrapulations. Rowling said there > are about one thousand students at Hogwarts. (Yes, yes, the books > don't tally, but I'm not going there for now.) There are seven > grades so that means there about about 150 students per grade. > In today's culture, there are about 200 people in the population > for every 1 student in a given year. Now assuming that wizards > live twice as long as muggles, make that 400 to 1. That leaves a > grand total of 60,000 wizards in England. That is only .3 of one > percent or 3 in every thousand Britians are wizards. > > However you cook the numbers, there aren't very many. However there > is enough to be orginized. > > Mark bboy_mn asks: I'm curious where you (Mark) and Chris got their numbers. Especially, Mark's student to population ratios. I'm not challenging those ratio; I'm just curious how you arrived at them. To add more perspective, UK has a population of 60,000,000 (as of 2001). Using 200/1 ratio yields a wizard population of 300,000. Using 400/1, obviously, 150,000. Using Chris' estimate of 1%, that obviously yields 600,000. so.... 150,000 to 600,000 For reference - Luxembourg is about 450,000 people. bboy_mn From prefectmarcus at yahoo.com Wed Aug 28 20:25:37 2002 From: prefectmarcus at yahoo.com (prefectmarcus) Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 20:25:37 -0000 Subject: The Scale of Things In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43299 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "bboy_mn" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "prefectmarcus" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "CHRISTOPHER NUTTALL" > > christopher_g_nuttall wrote: > > > But for the Wizarding world to be so large, the wizards must > > > be at least one percent of the population (roughly 0.2 million), > > > and Hogwarts does not appear to be large enough to cater for > > > all their children. > > > > > Chris > > > > I once did some quick number extrapulations. Rowling said there > > are about one thousand students at Hogwarts. (Yes, yes, the books > > don't tally, but I'm not going there for now.) There are seven > > grades so that means there about about 150 students per grade. > > In today's culture, there are about 200 people in the population > > for every 1 student in a given year. Now assuming that wizards > > live twice as long as muggles, make that 400 to 1. That leaves a > > grand total of 60,000 wizards in England. That is only .3 of one > > percent or 3 in every thousand Britians are wizards. > > > > However you cook the numbers, there aren't very many. However there > > is enough to be orginized. > > > > Mark > > bboy_mn asks: > > I'm curious where you (Mark) and Chris got their numbers. Especially, > Mark's student to population ratios. > > I'm not challenging those ratio; I'm just curious how you arrived at them. > > To add more perspective, UK has a population of 60,000,000 (as of > 2001). Using 200/1 ratio yields a wizard population of 300,000. Using > 400/1, obviously, 150,000. > > Using Chris' estimate of 1%, that obviously yields 600,000. > > so.... 150,000 to 600,000 > > For reference - Luxembourg is about 450,000 people. > > bboy_mn I got the ratios from my own experience with schools versus populations. There were 350 in a grade in my HS from a population of 7000. In another town where I lived, there were 120 kids per grade in a population of 2400. So the 20:1 ratio is pretty consistent. The Population of England I got from Chris. Now, working backwards from your figure of 60 Million and assuming a Wizard ratio of 1:100, that would be 600,000 total wizards per grade of 150 or 4000:1 population to student ratio. And if you accept the 40-students-per- year Hogwarts theory, that is 15,000:1 population to student ratio. No matter how you slice or dice it, the wizard population has to be considerably less than 1% of the overall population -- at least an order of magnitude less. It has to be parts per thousand rather than parts per hundred. Marcus From cindysphynx at comcast.net Wed Aug 28 21:04:59 2002 From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (cindysphynx) Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 21:04:59 -0000 Subject: Toon Talk (WAS Who Framed Fred and George?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43300 I'm re-arranging Dicentra's post a bit, because otherwise I found my own post becoming repetitive. I don't think I did any real damage, though. Apologies to Dicentra if I did. *********************** Dicentra (about the distinction between which characters' injuries are funny and which are not): > So you see, I'm not arguing that "it's OK because it's just a >story." I'm arguing that it's OK because the story is populated > with two kinds of characters, Toons and people, and the story >itself is defining who's who. You don't laugh when the people get >hurt because they actually get hurt. You do laugh at the Toons. Hmmm. This is a pretty novel theory ? one I've never seen raised on the list before. I'm not sure I fully understand it, but I'd like to try. As best I can sort this out, it sounds like the Toon theory views certain characters as Toons based on three factors: 1. Whether anyone gets hurt. 2. Whether the character inflicting harm or pain is important or fleshed out as a character. 3. Whether the victim of the act in question is important or fleshed out as a character. You look to the story to separate the Toons from the non-Toons. OK, I'm with you so far, Dicentra. Dicentra: > The point is that those who are aghast at the Twins' behavior are > reading them as if they were real people instead of Toons, thinking > that if the Twins did something like that to them or their kids, >they would be calling Molly and giving her a piece of their minds. > Granted, if many of these incidents happened in real life, they > *would* be painful and tragic and harmful. But you can't hurt >Dudley or Draco or Quirrell because they're Toons. This is a rather interesting idea. If I understand, the idea is that we all know that these are just fictional characters anyway, not real life. These fictional characters can't be hurt, so why not laugh at their plight or their misbehavior? I mean, that's what Saturday morning cartoons are all about, right? I have to admit to some confusion. First, *all* of the characters in the books are fictional. A great many of them have their comedic moments, and only a few are really important and get a lot of "screen time," if you will. So when are we supposed to be aghast, horrified, bothered and disturbed, and when are we supposed to be highly amused? See, I don't think it is fair to say that the sole purpose of the twins is comedic. At times, this is true and at times it is not true. The twins figure prominently in GoF ? were it not for the gambling sub-plot, the Bagman misdirection would not have worked. So the twins serve a serious and important plot purpose in GoF, yet that is the book in which they engage in the two most disturbing instances of alleged bullying behavior ? the train stomp and the Ton Tongue Toffee episode. Doesn't this undermine the idea that our willingness to forgive the twins for their transgressions is linked in some way to the importance of their role in the plot? Moreover, if we identify these three different forms of "Danger Averted" comedy, don't almost all of the instances in which one character harms another fall into the category of Danger Averted? Neither Wormtail nor Voldemort is well-fleshed out, so does that mean it is amusing for Voldemort to torture Wormtail? I'm having trouble seeing the link between whether a character is fleshed out and our willingness to look the other way when they do something wrong or mean-spirited or whether the pain they suffer ought to trouble us. Take Professor Trelawney, for instance. If I understand the Toon theory, Professor Trelawney is a Toon. She is a caricature if I ever saw one, and it works brilliantly for me. I enjoy all of her scenes a great deal in the sense that I think they are well-written and she "works" as a character. She is a bit player in two of four books. Most of the time, she is written for laughs, just like the twins. Funny thing, though. People don't *like* Professor Trelawney much. On the rare occasions I have tried to defend her, people say she is a fraud, a charlatan. They don't like how she upsets Harry, how she wishes to treat him like a lab rat after his dream in GoF. They don't embrace her. I have never seen anyone cut her a break because she is a Toon. No, Professor Trelawney is a Fraud, plain and simple, and that is the beginning and end of it for many people on this list ? even though there are plenty of hints that she is not a total fraud. And as Elkins mentioned, Lockhart -- a major character in CoS -- is played almost entirely for laughs for most of that book, yet no one forgives him for his evil actions. So then. Fred and George are comedic Toons, but we shouldn't view them as bullies. Professor Trelwney is a comedic Toon, but we should view her as an opportunistic fraud. Lockhart is a comedic Toon, but we should view him as an evil phony. Hmmm. This suggests to me that a character's status as a Toon (a status that is not all that well-defined, IMO) excuses their bad behavior in one case (the twins) but not others (Trelawney and Lockhart). I'm still noodling through this whole issue of slapstick and come- uppance humor, but I think the bright line that separates whether something is potentially amusing or is sickening is the extent to which the victim is harmed, either on-screen or off-screen, including the extent to which the offending act itself is portrayed in a realistic light. In assessing whether the extent of the off- screen harm, it is quite reasonable for readers and viewers to rely on their own knowledge of the world and extrapolate what is hurtful and what is painful. Finally, let me tweak the facts a bit to see how the Toon theory holds up in a context slightly different from bullying. Let's say we have a work of fiction. In it, one of the characters is a black servant. Let's then assume that all of the characters except for our black servant are white, and the black servant works for all the white characters. Some of the white characters are major characters and others are minor characters. Some white characters are written as serious and some are written as comedic. OK. Now let's assume that the white characters play practical jokes on our black servant. They burn crosses in places where he can see them. They turn up in Klan outfits. They tell racist jokes to the black character. Oh, the white characters don't mean any harm, though. They never lay a hand on our black servant character, and they adore him like a member of the family, they really do. It's not intended to be malicious, and it is not motivated by hatred. It's all in good fun, see? Would anyone find this work of fiction funny? Would it matter if the black character were a bit player rather than a major player? Would it matter if the black character had lots of punch lines himself? Would it matter whether the white characters committing these acts were minor characters, were comedic figures or were less than 18 years old? Would it matter if the black character were stoic such that we never learned how he felt about this treatment? I think not. I would guess (and I would hope) that most people would squirm Big Time. They wouldn't enjoy the harassment of a black character much at all, I'd hope, even if it were all intended to be in good fun in a work of fiction. It just plain wouldn't be funny. Not to me, anyway. That is because most of us would start to feel for the black character. Even if we weren't shown his pain, even if he were a Toon, even if his tormentors were Toons, we wouldn't stand for it. Would we? Cindy From eloiseherisson at aol.com Wed Aug 28 21:10:24 2002 From: eloiseherisson at aol.com (eloiseherisson at aol.com) Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 17:10:24 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] The Twins Message-ID: <19d.7c1ac79.2a9e9640@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 43301 There have been some particularly sensitive posts on this subject, today, I think. What I find particularly encouraging is that Tabouli (welcome back, Tabouli!) and Cindy both found ways of expressing why members of the group have such strongly differing opinions and what it might be that touches a nerve in us. I apologise for ruthlessly snipping short passages from these posts. Tabouli differentiated between the function which she perceives them to have, that of 'team coaches' one one level and their character portrayal on another level: Tabouli: >For my own part, I don't feel strongly enough about the Twins to don a badge, but I >can happily admit to different feelings on these two levels. On a team loyalty level, >sure, I appreciate the Twins' efforts to look after Harry, rescue him from the nasty >Dursleys, avenge him against Draco, keeping him amused. However, on a >character portrayal level, I agree with Elkins that the victims of the Twins' antics are >likely to feel intimidated and bullied, and I agree with those who don't find their brand >of slapstick retribution very entertaining. Thank goodness. I was beginning to think I was almost the only person round here who could see the validity of interpreting the twins in more than one light simultaneously. I suspect that they were originally envisaged rather as Toons (and I do mean in the sense that Dicentra meant it, as clarified in her latest post) and this is my instinctive reading. Yet the books have proved worthy of deeper analysis and deeper analysis of the twins seems to be a little worrying. If we insist on analysing the text at one level only, then we are like the two women observed arguing from adjacent properties, unable to agree because we are arguing from different premises. As Ali has just pointed out, since I started writing, it may be useful to read on more than one plane at once and I think this is what I tend to do. Cindy tackled the question of why they are such an emotive topic, on the way explaining how her reading of them has changed: >So why the tremendous interest in whether the twins are bullies? >It's because, IMO, the discussion touches a nerve. It makes people >uncomfortable in the same way that learning that a racist joke >amused them makes them uncomfortable. Perhaps people get a little >defensive, maybe a little vested in making darn clear that *they* >did not laugh at bullying behavior because the twins' behavior was >not, *not,* NOT bullying behavior. Because if (like me) they >laughed at the twins' behavior and then can be convinced that it is >bullying and mean-spirited, they will either have to change their >opinion of the twins or explain how it is that someone as caring and >thoughtful and fair as they are could be amused by bullying >behavior. I think this is very true and once we start to analyse the twins as characters who have a real effect on other characters or who because they seem to have authorial approval might be seen as role models, then we have a problem, whether or not we actually label them as 'bullies'. I actually think that the labelling issue isn't necessarily very helpful. It's what they *do* that is at issue, isn't it, rather than whether they technically fall into a particular definition of bullying (although posts regarding the latter have been informative and helpful in making us think about what the twins *do* actually do: I don't want anyone to think I am belittling their contribution). Cindy has gone on a journey where her perception of the twins has changed. I would say that mine has perhaps gained another layer, another plane, as Ali said. You see, I don't feel compelled to justify why I find the twins funny, despite the fact that I would like to think of myself as caring, thoughtful and fair, as Cindy puts it. I can see why others interpret them as bullies, yet *I* still find them amusing. I am amused by humorous scenes and situations, by jokes which are sometimes banal (I'm easily amused), by JKR's inventiveness. I am amused by them as I would be by cartoon characters. But if I analyse their behaviour as *characters*, then I do regard them as often (but by no means always) careless of others' feelings, often (but by no means always) self-centred. Cindy again: > This discussion of the twins is not the first time criticism of a >character has touched off controvery on the list, BTW. That same >reaction, I think, is part of what could be happening when some of >us start to feel uncomfortable or irritated when a list member >points out the undesirable traits of some of the more beloved >characters in the books. For instance, I adore Moody, and the first >time someone pointed out that Real Moody behaves like a Rogue Cop, I >felt a bit defensive. Civil liberties are important to me, so why >weren't my police misconduct warning bells clanging loudly at >Moody's behavior in the Pensieve? Maybe my beliefs about the >importance of civil liberties and police misconduct aren't as deeply >held as I like to claim they are. I have an image of Cindy trying on the Sorting Hat and worrying about whether she's been put in the right house. We all have bits of ourselves that we aren't comfortable with, don't we? And some of us worry that there are still more bits in there that we wouldn't like if we knew about them. But I think this is both one of the functions of literature and one of the functions of humour. Humour allows us to laugh at things that in the real world we would find abhorrent, to assimilate them, to deal with them, to acknowledge that there are those dark recesses in there that we'd rather not think about. If I laugh, for example, at a scene of comedy violence, you might think it is because I am uncivilised enough to think that violence per se is OK and the victim deserved all he got. OTOH, it might be because I am a human animal and humans, unfortunately have a regrettable instinct to violence which many of us have (to a greater or lesser extent) sublimated. Yet the instinct is still there and comedy allows a cathartic release of what is deep within us. Tragedy does it too, of course, only perhaps this is more socially acceptable. You know, I think we *could* argue that unwillingness to laugh at the twins is as much a distancing, defensive reaction as the rush to defend them from the charge of being bullies. Just a thought. But hey, it's our choices that make us who we are, isn't it? Not whatever is lurking in the darkest corners of our psyches, waiting to jump out like a boggart when a sensitive topic is broached. So it's OK for Cindy to adore Moody and for Elkins to adore (is that the right word?) Crouch Jr (for whom I also have a strong appreciation) and for me to adore Snape. The fact that we do says nothing at all about our own choices in leading our own lives. Cindy again: >Lastly, there might be one more thing at work here. If a person >reads the books and does not read this list, that person will likely >remain stuck in the very same place she was when she finished the >last page of GoF. If she reads this list, however, she is likely to >have things pointed out that she hadn't noticed. It *does* affect >how a person will read and react to future books. >These discussions have permanently changed the way I will read and enjoy >the remaining books in the series. For me, this is a good thing on >balance. I have a much deeper appreciation for the books than I did >before I discovered this list, and that deeper appreciation is worth >the loss of enjoyment I would have obtained from my previously >superficial approach to the canon. >I imagine that some people don't welcome having their reading >experience changed in this way. I can understand that. If JKR >sticks to the same brand of humor in the next three books, future >books won't be nearly as fun for me as the first four books as a >direct result of the things various list members have said. I'll be >laughing a lot less and wincing a lot more, I suspect. I'll be >watching out for the SYCOPHANTS and cheering more for the powerless >against the powerful. It's certainly true that our discussions inform our reading. My reading too would have been pretty superficial and I suppose this group has politicised my thinking about various issues, as well as allowing me to develop my thinking about the ethical issues contained in the books. But I do fear for your future enjoyment. I can't see why JKR *would* change her brand of humour as she has said that she writes what she enjoys. To go off on a different tack, I have begun to wonder if there is a cultural element to this problem. British humour is not always very, erm, *subtle*, you know. We have a very strong strain of slapstick/toon-type violence/ crude school boy humour which some of us never really grow out of, JKR included, I suspect. Eloise From jodel at aol.com Wed Aug 28 19:07:26 2002 From: jodel at aol.com (jodel at aol.com) Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 15:07:26 EDT Subject: Death Eaters and their children Message-ID: <7c.2d32605b.2a9e796e@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 43302 Sorry for the shortish post, but aren't we taking a bit for granted here? We know that there is a Crabbe, a Goyle, a Malfoy and a Nott in the same year as Harry. We know that there are Death Eaters of those names who showed up at Voldy's rebirthday party. We know that the Malfoy at the party is the Hogwarts-age Malfoy's father. We don't actually know anything beyond that. Harry *assumes* that the elder Crabbe and Goyle are "his" Crabbe and Goyle's fathers. But we don't know that he was right about that. There is nothing written in the rule book that says that Slytherin families are limited to one son per generation. The elder Crabbe, Goyle and Nott could be uncles. Or grandfathers, cousins, or even, given wizarding lifespans, older brothers. Or any combination of the above. As to the Nott in Harry's class; we have clues. 1. As has been pointed out by more than one person, there were four or five as yet unidentified names at Harry's sorting ceremony. IIRC among those were Morag MacDougal (a girl), "Moon", "Nott", and a Sally Ann Perks (another girl). There may have been others that Harry missed completely, being somewhat preoccupied at the time. 2. In Goblet, if not earlier, there is at least one reference aluding to Pansy Parkinson and her *gang of Slytherin girls*. Well the only other Slytherin girl we know to put a name to is Milicent Bulstrode. But, two people do not constitute a gang, any way you slice it. (Even if one of them IS Milicent Bulstrode.) At least a couple of the as yet unidentified names are most likely to be Slytherin girls and part of Pansy's little "gang". They could even all be. (Though that seems unlikely.) However; if the Nott is indeed from a DE family and has been brought up to hold those kind of "values", it is very likely that she is part of Pansy's gang. But, then, You also have to remember that the Nott at the rebirthday party could have been the black sheep of an otherwise blameless family. In short, we have plenty of information to generate fanfics from (if that's your thing) but not enough to really draw solid conclusions. Yet. -JOdel From jodel at aol.com Wed Aug 28 19:07:31 2002 From: jodel at aol.com (jodel at aol.com) Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 15:07:31 EDT Subject: Snape and Narcisa Message-ID: <9f.2c60c97b.2a9e7973@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 43303 Alora writes; >>I have always wondered why Snape favors Draco. (*snip*) I am just wondering if there is some sort of familial tie there that makes Snape fond of Draco (if you can call it fond). Does someone have a theory on this? I know it isn't a big, interesting question, but it has me wondering. Okay, one theory, to order; Snape is Draco's godfather. Why not? After all, Sirius is Harry's. Admittedly, Sirius was James Potter's *best* friend and indications are that Lucius is some 10-15 years older than Snape. But among wizards there appears to be some indication of wide age gaps between friends. (Dumbledore and Flamel, anyone?) And the kind of "pureblood" society background that Rowling has been hinting at for Draco is the kind of system where everybody is related to just about everyone else to some degree. For that matter, the families may be long-standing neighbors. There are any number of plausible reasons to support a long association between the Snapes and the Malfoys, (or whoever Narcissa's family may be.) And, after all, there's nothing that says he ISN'T... -JOdel From morganmuffle at yahoo.co.uk Wed Aug 28 19:38:00 2002 From: morganmuffle at yahoo.co.uk (morganmuffle) Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 19:38:00 -0000 Subject: Fred and George: The Bullies You Do Know + Hagrid In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43304 As I've been reading this thread I was thinking about some of the children I work with in a summer camp. Fred and George's tricks have always seemed fairly harmless to me- the sort of behaviour I would deal with by a telling off explaining that its not nice but no real punishment because they mean no real harm. Of course some of they're tricks could cause harm (the toffees for starters) but as it is only meant as a harmless joke then I don't classify it as bullying but thoughtlessness. Some people in this thread have mentioned Hagrid's treatment of Dudley as bullying- again I have to disagree. Hagrid- in my opinion is trying to do the same as the twins however his trick has more consequences (the operation to remove the tail). He is the classic example of someone who simply does not know his strength- or does not know how to react in scale. Some children do this- I split up a fight today where one boy saw someone knock his brother in a game and so punched him- now that is unacceptable as we told him but it is not bullying. Hagrid overreacts but he does not deliberately set out to harm Dudley maliciously. Now I accept the children I work with and so know are younger than the characters (particularly Hagrid) but they are about the right age for reading Harry Potter, between 5 and 13, and I think that a lot of the characters act beneath their ages in the books because JKR has written them so children can understand how a character reacts. In conclusion I think maybe someone needs to explain to the twins just how bad a consequence some of their tricks could have but to call them bullies is an exaggeration and unfair to them. Morgan From kellybroughton at yahoo.com Wed Aug 28 21:18:09 2002 From: kellybroughton at yahoo.com (kelly broughton) Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 14:18:09 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Snape and Narcissa In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020828211809.55182.qmail@web21110.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 43305 This is possible, although I am more inclined to think that our dear potions professor may be Draco's godfather. -kel, who thinks Sirius shouldn't be the only godparent in the Potterverse --- alora67 wrote: > Okay, hopefully this has not been discussed before. I searched and > did not find anything, but then, I might not have used the correct > terms to search with ;-). I have always wondered why Snape favors > Draco. It cannot simply be because Draco is a Slytherin...I suppose > it could, but I do not think so. Is there anyway that Snape and > Narcissa could be related? Brother and sister? (they are so > different in appearance, I just don't know about that one) Cousins? > I am just wondering if there is some sort of familial tie there that > makes Snape fond of Draco (if you can call it fond). Does someone > have a theory on this? I know it isn't a big, interesting question, > but it has me wondering. > > Alora > > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes http://finance.yahoo.com From crana at ntlworld.com Wed Aug 28 21:39:10 2002 From: crana at ntlworld.com (rosie) Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 22:39:10 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Scale of Things References: Message-ID: <002a01c24edb$58e67da0$2b3468d5@xxx> No: HPFGUIDX 43306 Hi Marcus, just been reading your post: "I got the ratios from my own experience with schools versus populations. There were 350 in a grade in my HS from a population of 7000. In another town where I lived, there were 120 kids per grade in a population of 2400. So the 20:1 ratio is pretty consistent." and "In today's culture, there are about 200 people in the population for every 1 student in a given year. Now assuming that wizards live twice as long as muggles, make that 400 to 1." Ok, I'm not trying to be funny here but I don't really get this, I'm sorry. Are you using 20:1 (40:1) or 200:1 (400:1)? Also... using data from the year 2000. Total population of Britain: 59,755,700 Number of children aged 10 - 15 exclusive: 4,598,000 million That is 5 years at school, giving approximately 919600 children per year in secondary school in Britain. Using the figure of 150/year at Hogwarts, that would give an approximate ratio of 6130:1 muggle:Hogwarts children - a tiny minority. Then looking at the ratio of secondary pupils to adults: In 2000, there were 12.1 million children aged under 16. Taking this away from the total population leaves the adult population at 47.6557 million. So the ratio of secondary pupil : adult is 1: 10.4 (3 sig figures). This is quite a way from either the 1:20 or 1:200 you suggested. However, if we then double it as you suggested to account for wizard lifespans, we do have a 1:20 secondary pupil: adult ratio. Taking this straight from the Hogwarts figure given by JKR (1000 Hogwarts students), that would be 1000 x 20, to give an adult wizard population of around 20,000. So around 2950 Muggles : 1 magical person. Okay, anyone can criticise my maths if they think I have it wrong as I'm no hot shakes at maths. Anyone who wants to find interesting UK statistics can at http://www.statistics.gov.uk/ . Rosie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From eleri at aracnet.com Wed Aug 28 21:45:22 2002 From: eleri at aracnet.com (CB) Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 14:45:22 -0700 Subject: bullying In-Reply-To: <1030568714.13116.87701.m11@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.0.20020828143638.00ac7500@mail.aracnet.com> No: HPFGUIDX 43307 I've never seen the twins as bullies, because I feel that one important aspect of bullying is missing- malicious intent. They're mischevious, devious, sneaky, occasionally out of hand, and often over the top, but I have yet to identify maliciousness. It's like the difference between trickster gods. Coyote (or even Ananzi the Spider) is a trickster, and is always playing jokes on people. Sometimes ones that cause more damage or hurt than was intended. Loki, on the other hand is a trickster god, too, but his tricks are all designed for maximum misery. Fred and George are Coyotes, "heehee, lets see what this does". Draco and his cronies are Lokis, "heehee, let see how badly we can hurt someone". Charlene From jferer at yahoo.com Wed Aug 28 22:10:08 2002 From: jferer at yahoo.com (jferer) Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 22:10:08 -0000 Subject: The Scale of Things In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43309 Mark:"I once did some quick number extrapulations. Rowling said there are about one thousand students at Hogwarts. (Yes, yes, the books don't tally, but I'm not going there for now.) There are seven grades so that means there about about 150 students per grade. In today's culture, there are about 200 people in the population for every 1 student in a given year. Now assuming that wizards live twice as long as muggles, make that 400 to 1. That leaves a grand total of 60,000 wizards in England. That is only .3 of one percent or 3 in every thousand Britians are wizards. However you cook the numbers, there aren't very many. However there is enough to be orginized." I had some actual figures to work with, to wit: My kids go to a seven year grade school (K-6). There's 466 students, and there 10 such schools in a town of 55,000. If each school had the exact same number (can't be true) they constitute .08 of the population. If Hogwarts had 1,000 students, at that rate there would be 11,800 some-odd wizards out there. If there are twice that many because of the longer life span, it's somewhere around 20,000. That's not much. I think it's even worse. I'm not sure we can just double the wizard population if the normal life span doubles, because we haven't accounted for the fact an older wizard has twice as many years' chances to get run over by a bus or something. And when Lily and James are killed by Voldemort, he hasn't cut short 50 years of life per victim, but potentially 120 years. Someone who knows about population models could come up with a better estimate than we can. On top of THAT, how do we count the Muggle parents of wizards in that wizard world population? Here's another problem. She has Britain covered by Hogwarts, and the entire rest of Europe served by Beauxbatons and Durmstrang. If they are the only two wizard schools - and we haven't been told, but where were the others at the Triwizard Tournament? - then the population density of wizards in continental Europe is even worse than in Britain. JKR doesn't seem to be very math-oriented, but there really isn't any way to make her numbers work in wizard society. If there were other schools than Hogwarts the problem wouldn't be the same, but she's said no, so it's no. JKR often reminds me of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle in this regard. He was always careless of detail in writing his stories, sparking about a century of debate that still hasn't stopped. I'm almost glad. If it all fit, what in the world would we DO while waiting for Book 5, besides beat all the characters to death? From prefectmarcus at yahoo.com Wed Aug 28 22:24:27 2002 From: prefectmarcus at yahoo.com (prefectmarcus) Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 22:24:27 -0000 Subject: The Scale of Things In-Reply-To: <002a01c24edb$58e67da0$2b3468d5@xxx> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43310 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "rosie" wrote: > Hi Marcus, just been reading your post: > > "I got the ratios from my own experience with schools versus > populations. There were 350 in a grade in my HS from a population of > 7000. In another town where I lived, there were 120 kids per grade > in a population of 2400. So the 20:1 ratio is pretty consistent." > > and > > "In today's culture, there are about 200 people in the population for every 1 > student in a given year. Now assuming that wizards live twice as > long as muggles, make that 400 to 1." > > Ok, I'm not trying to be funny here but I don't really get this, I'm sorry. Are you using 20:1 (40:1) or 200:1 (400:1)? > > Also... using data from the year 2000. > > Total population of Britain: 59,755,700 > Number of children aged 10 - 15 exclusive: 4,598,000 million > > That is 5 years at school, giving approximately 919600 children per year in secondary school in Britain. > > Using the figure of 150/year at Hogwarts, that would give an approximate ratio of 6130:1 muggle:Hogwarts children - a tiny minority. > > Then looking at the ratio of secondary pupils to adults: > > In 2000, there were 12.1 million children aged under 16. Taking this away from the total population leaves the adult population at 47.6557 million. > > So the ratio of secondary pupil : adult is 1: 10.4 (3 sig figures). This is quite a way from either the 1:20 or 1:200 you suggested. > However, if we then double it as you suggested to account for wizard lifespans, we do have a 1:20 secondary pupil: adult ratio. > > Taking this straight from the Hogwarts figure given by JKR (1000 Hogwarts students), that would be 1000 x 20, to give an adult wizard population of around 20,000. So around 2950 Muggles : 1 magical person. > > Okay, anyone can criticise my maths if they think I have it wrong as I'm no hot shakes at maths. Anyone who wants to find interesting UK statistics can at http://www.statistics.gov.uk/ . > > Rosie > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Total population of Britain: 59,755,700 Number of children aged 10 - 15 exclusive: 4,598,000 million Let's simplify things. 60Million Britains 4.5Million Schoolkids divided into six years = 750,000 kids per year Ratio of 60Million Pop to 750,000 kids in a year = 80:1 Double that for longer-lived Wizards = 160:1 Using 1000 kids in 7 years (approx 150/yr) works out to total Wizard population in Great Britain of 24,000. Using 40 kids per year works out to a total Wizard pop of 6400. 60,000,000 to 24,000 is 2500:1 Gen pop to Wizards. (Large Hogwarts) 60,000,000 to 6,400 is 9375:1 Gen pop to Wizards. (Small Hogwarts) No matter how you slice or dice it, there are not very many wizards per general population. But even the 6400 number could easily support Diagon Alley. I grew up in a town that big and our commercial center would have swamped Diagon Alley. Mark From pengolodh_sc at yahoo.no Wed Aug 28 22:40:00 2002 From: pengolodh_sc at yahoo.no (pengolodh_sc) Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 22:40:00 -0000 Subject: Numbers (Re: The Scale of Things) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43311 --- In HPforGrownups, "jferer" wrote: > I had some actual figures to work with, to wit: My kids go to a > seven year grade school (K-6). There's 466 students, and there > 10 such schools in a town of 55,000. If each school had the > exact same number (can't be true) they constitute .08 of the > population. If Hogwarts had 1,000 students, at that rate there > would be 11,800 some-odd wizards out there. If there are twice > that many because of the longer life span, it's somewhere around > 20,000. That's not much. This agrees with what I found by doing comparisons to demographical data from Norway and Scotland about a year's time ago - the muggle data were taken from Scotland's Public Registry Office, and the Norwegian equivalent. I then assumed linear relations, as there were not data to go on to provide fudge-factors to improve the estimates. While we know nothing of how long a witch will remain able to bear children, I do get the impression that most families have few children, the Weasleys being an exception. > I think it's even worse. I'm not sure we can just double the wizard > population if the normal life span doubles, because we haven't > accounted for the fact an older wizard has twice as many years' > chances to get run over by a bus or something. And when Lily and > James are killed by Voldemort, he hasn't cut short 50 years of life > per victim, but potentially 120 years. Someone who knows about > population models could come up with a better estimate than we can. > On top of THAT, how do we count the Muggle parents of wizards in > that wizard world population? As far as we know, muggle-parentage is somewhat rare, so I think assuming (though it does create an inaccuracy) that squibs outweigh muggleborns in calculating the statistics, we can somewhat account for this. The result will not be perfect, but I do think it will be close enough. > Here's another problem. She has Britain covered by Hogwarts, > and the entire rest of Europe served by Beauxbatons and > Durmstrang. If they are the only two wizard schools - and we > haven't been told, but where were the others at the Triwizard > Tournament? - then the population density of wizards in > continental Europe is even worse than in Britain. But we do not know how many students go to these schools, have no numbers to go on, and so can conclude little to nothing about the wizarding population-density in Europe. And we do have very strong circumstantial evidence pointing to there being more than three scools of wizardry in Europe. From GoF, Chapter Twelve - The Triwizard Tournament (Dumbledore speaking, on the page before he uses the term "of age", and only four-five pages before the end of the chapter): "The Triwizard Tournament was first established some seven hundred years ago, as a friendly competition between the three largest European schools of wizardry - Hogwarts, Beauxbatons, and Drumstrang." While this evidence is not rock-hard (i.e., it might only mean that back then there were other schools, of lesser standing than the three great, with these lesser schools having now disappeared), it does make it plausible and probable that there are more than three wizarding-schools in Europe. Best regards Christian Stub? From rvotaw at i-55.com Wed Aug 28 23:12:51 2002 From: rvotaw at i-55.com (Richelle Votaw) Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 18:12:51 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] The Scale of Things/ Death Eater's children References: <1030384581.1391.38853.m12@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <005801c24ee8$6f8d36e0$a9a2cdd1@istu757> No: HPFGUIDX 43312 Chris writes: > Am I the only one who has been having doubts about the scale of the > Potterverse? The size of the Wizarding World and the threat of Voldemort > are both contradictory. Well, first let me say the numbers of Wizards versus Muggles always confuses me, so I won't get into that here. I'll leave it to the math wizzes. However, this sort of fits in, so I'll add this. I remember reading in a JKR interview where someone asked her about Voldemort's goals in the Wizarding World. She said his initial goal was European dominance, followed by world wide dominance. Whatever that amounts to, I see Europe as sort of the "heart" of the entire Wizard World, where it's origins are. Chris again: > People in the books were talking about him wanting to take over the Wizarding World, but > can he do that. If there are 0.2 million wizards, he's out numbered heavily and all they > have to do is gather together at a safe place and crush him Well, keep in mind there are a lot of Voldemort supporters out there who aren't necessarily Death Eaters. Still, when I sat down to calculate numbers of death eaters I came up with a lot more than I expected to. And those are the elite. I expect the supporters outnumber the death eaters 10 to 1. We just don't see much of them in Harry's world. Besides, there's always the Imperius curse, highly used by Voldemort and company. Jodel writes: > We don't actually know anything beyond that. > Harry *assumes* that the elder Crabbe and Goyle are "his" Crabbe and Goyle's > fathers. But we don't know that he was right about that. There is nothing > written in the rule book that says that Slytherin families are limited to one > son per generation. The elder Crabbe, Goyle and Nott could be uncles. True, though they did "bow clumsily, muttering dully." Sound familiar? Like father like son??? Student Nott could be not a son/daughter of the DE Nott, though the name cropping up in both places sounds a little suspicious. What got me was DE Nott was hanging out with DE's Crabbe/Goyle/Malfoy in the circle. Richelle From dicentra at xmission.com Wed Aug 28 23:30:19 2002 From: dicentra at xmission.com (dicentra63) Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 23:30:19 -0000 Subject: Toon Talk (WAS Who Framed Fred and George?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43313 Cindy said: Hmmm. This is a pretty novel theory -- one I've never seen raised on the list before. I'm not sure I fully understand it, but I'd like to try. As best I can sort this out, it sounds like the Toon theory views certain characters as Toons based on three factors: 1. Whether anyone gets hurt. 2. Whether the character inflicting harm or pain is important or fleshed out as a character. 3. Whether the victim of the act in question is important or fleshed out as a character. You look to the story to separate the Toons from the non-Toons. OK, I'm with you so far, Dicentra. Dicentra replies: Uh, not so with me, so much. I'd revise the list to read thus: 1. Whether the character is able to respond *realistically* to events in the story at a given moment. The importance or fleshed-outness of a character isn't central to their Toonishness. The Dursleys and Malfoy are somewhat two-dimensional, but they're plenty important to the story. What makes the Dursleys Toons is that they can't land any real blows on Harry (or anyone else), nor do they seem to feel pain or anything else in a realistic manner. Malfoy is a little different: he's not as exaggerated as the Dursleys, but he doesn't seem to be able to do any real harm. (Buckbeak would disagree.) Likewise the twins: I wouldn't say that they are absolutely all the time Toons, but they do function as Toons very frequently. They just don't seem to be able to land *real* blows on the victims of their pranks. Dicentra had said before: The point is that those who are aghast at the Twins' behavior are reading them as if they were real people instead of Toons, thinking that if the Twins did something like that to them or their kids, they would be calling Molly and giving her a piece of their minds. Granted, if many of these incidents happened in real life, they *would* be painful and tragic and harmful. But you can't hurt Dudley or Draco or Quirrell because they're Toons. Cindy responds: This is a rather interesting idea. If I understand, the idea is that we all know that these are just fictional characters anyway, not real life. These fictional characters can't be hurt, so why not laugh at their plight or their misbehavior? I mean, that's what Saturday morning cartoons are all about, right? I have to admit to some confusion. First, *all* of the characters in the books are fictional. A great many of them have their comedic moments, and only a few are really important and get a lot of "screen time," if you will. So when are we supposed to be aghast, horrified, bothered and disturbed, and when are we supposed to be highly amused? Dicentra responds: What the Toon theory posits is that not all fictional characters are created equal. Some of them react realistically, others don't. You can't hurt Quirrell, but you can hurt Lupin and Sirius. The screen time is also irrellevant: Cedric's parents barely show their faces, but they obviously can be hurt. How do you know how to react? It ends up being a combination of textual cues and reader experience. That's why some things are funny to some people and to others they aren't. Cindy says: See, I don't think it is fair to say that the sole purpose of the twins is comedic. Dicentra: Neither do I. They function as Toons frequently, but not always. They were hurt when Bagman cheated them, and I think they feel it when their siblings are suffering. Those times they try to cheer up Ginny in CoS and Ron in PoA are clumsy, but I really do think it bothered them that they were hurting, and they reacted the only way they knew how. (If I had a dollar for every time a well-meaning person dealt with *my* pain in an ineffective way [including my own mother] I could pay off the house.) Cindy: Moreover, if we identify these three different forms of "Danger Averted" comedy, don't almost all of the instances in which one character harms another fall into the category of Danger Averted? Neither Wormtail nor Voldemort is well-fleshed out, so does that mean it is amusing for Voldemort to torture Wormtail? I'm having trouble seeing the link between whether a character is fleshed out and our willingness to look the other way when they do something wrong or mean-spirited or whether the pain they suffer ought to trouble us. Dicentra: I wouldn't call Peter a Toon. He can feel pain and react realistically to events. He's pathetic in the Shrieking Shack, but that's not a Toonish moment at all. Voldemort isn't well fleshed-out because he's had so little screen time, but I wouldn't call him a Toon either. The torture of Wormtail isn't funny in the least: no danger is averted--Voldemort's Crucios are real enough in the context of the fictional universe. And there are no textual cues telling us we ought to think it's funny, either: no snide remarks from the narrator, no exaggerated characterizations. Cindy: Take Professor Trelawney, for instance. If I understand the Toon theory, Professor Trelawney is a Toon. She is a caricature if I ever saw one, and it works brilliantly for me. I enjoy all of her scenes a great deal in the sense that I think they are well-written and she "works" as a character. She is a bit player in two of four books. Most of the time, she is written for laughs, just like the twins. Funny thing, though. People don't *like* Professor Trelawney much. On the rare occasions I have tried to defend her, people say she is a fraud, a charlatan. They don't like how she upsets Harry, how she wishes to treat him like a lab rat after his dream in GoF. They don't embrace her. I have never seen anyone cut her a break because she is a Toon. No, Professor Trelawney is a Fraud, plain and simple, and that is the beginning and end of it for many people on this list -- even though there are plenty of hints that she is not a total fraud. And as Elkins mentioned, Lockhart -- a major character in CoS -- is played almost entirely for laughs for most of that book, yet no one forgives him for his evil actions. Dicentra: Being a Toon has nothing to do with being liked or being forgiven. Lockhart's evil actions aren't played for laughs: his vanity is. That vanity is annoying in the extreme, including to the characters in the novel, but it isn't *harmful*. His little "gems of advice" he gives Harry make Harry want to flee the scene, but Harry's not *hurt* by them. It's only when Lockhart tries to blast away his memory and whatnot that he emerges out of Toon territory and becomes dangerous. Quirrell does the same thing at the end of PS/SS, when he reveals his true colors. Though neither character acquires much dimension in these scenes, they stop functioning as Toons because they become harmful for real. As for Trelawney, she can't seem to land blows on Harry either. "Divination was his least favorite subject, apart from Potions. Professor Trelawney kept predicting Harry's death, which he found extremely annoying." (GoF 193) Harry isn't a nervous wreck because of those predictions; she can't do anything to him. Snape and McGonagall, OTOH, can. To the extent that Trelawney acquires the ability to really hurt someone she emerges from Toon status and becomes real. Or more real, at least. Cindy: I'm still noodling through this whole issue of slapstick and come-uppance humor, but I think the bright line that separates whether something is potentially amusing or is sickening is the extent to which the victim is harmed, either on-screen or off-screen, including the extent to which the offending act itself is portrayed in a realistic light. In assessing whether the extent of the off-screen harm, it is quite reasonable for readers and viewers to rely on their own knowledge of the world and extrapolate what is hurtful and what is painful. Dicentra: Except with Toons you can't rely on your own experience. If I fell off a 6,000-foot cliff and landed face down in the rock, I'd become a puddle of skin, bones, and blood, and I'd be dead dead dead. It would not be funny at all. Wile E. Coyote, however, falls off cliffs all episode long. He's not harmed because he's a Toon. And it's hysterical. Cindy: Let's say we have a work of fiction. In it, one of the characters is a black servant. Let's then assume that all of the characters except for our black servant are white, and the black servant works for all the white characters. ... OK. Now let's assume that the white characters play practical jokes on our black servant. They burn crosses in places where he can see them. They turn up in Klan outfits. They tell racist jokes to the black character. Oh, the white characters don't mean any harm, though. They never lay a hand on our black servant character, and they adore him like a member of the family, they really do. It's not intended to be malicious, and it is not motivated by hatred. It's all in good fun, see? ... Would anyone find this work of fiction funny? Dicentra: I wouldn't. Even a mock representation of Klan violence, in which the black character doesn't get hurt (he would just laugh it off), would not strike me as funny. And the reason I wouldn't find it funny is that it's Too Close To The Truth. I know too much about what the Klan did, about the lynchings and the beatings and the murders and the terror. The only people who might find a slapstick Klan piece funny are people who aren't familiar with the history behind black/white relations in the U.S. and who don't know about the Klan. Someone on another planet, maybe. And that's what's behind the schism on the list, I believe. For some list members, even the Toonish representations of bullying are Too Close To The Truth to be funny. Even if no one gets hurt in the story, the pain of real-life experiences nullifies the comedic aspect. The danger may be averted in the story, but it wasn't in real life, and real life trumps fiction. So it doesn't matter whether the motives of the twins are malicious, whether the twins like their victims, whether they go for weaker or stronger victims. It matters if the incident is written as a joke (no one is hurt) or as a serious thing (someone is hurt). And then ultimately it matters whether the reader has been hurt by real-life pranks (or "pranks"). --Dicentra, who was too invisible at school to be picked on From Malady579 at hotmail.com Thu Aug 29 02:54:47 2002 From: Malady579 at hotmail.com (malady579) Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 02:54:47 -0000 Subject: Blank pages in history Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43314 Another pondering (too much free time): Given the high profile of the Potter's death and thus Voldemort's disembodiment, wouldn't it seem highly probable that most of the wizard community knows why Voldemort went after the Potters in the first place? Yet, know one in school talks about it, though it is not a normal topic for dinner conversation really. Is it a secret in the wizard world? James seems to be from an ancient wizard family (given the invisibility cloak and money, I believe), so the WW knows thier history. Even in thier magic history books, Voldemort's motive does not seem to be revealed. Hermione learned of Harry and Voldemort in some books before she met him, yet these books did not tell why Voldemort was after James and Harry. I am assuming this because anything Hermione knows she has told, assuming that also. (She did hide Lupin's secret, but she had a motive in protecting him.) We have pages and pages in our history books as to the motives of the enemy and reasons for thier defeats, yet in wizard world it seems to be in shadows. Ron must not know either since he has not told Harry why. Most adults hold thier tongue around Harry as evident with the Black affair, but Malfoy did strut around because he had the priviledge of knowing something The Three did not. Does Lucius Malfoy know? How many of the deadeaters knew? Pettigrew knew Voldemort wanted to go after the Potters since he knew Voldemort wanted the information. So I am wondering, how many in Wizard World really know why. Why hasn't Harry heard by now from someone or read it somewhere? Maybe that is why Dumbledore also wanted to wisk Harry away. To prevent him from knowing so much too soon. It is late here and my mind was spinning. Though I throw it our for ya'll's comments and suggestions. I hope I made sense. Melody From cindysphynx at comcast.net Thu Aug 29 03:37:45 2002 From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (cindysphynx) Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 03:37:45 -0000 Subject: Toon Talk (WAS Who Framed Fred and George?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43315 Dicentra wrote (about the revised Toon bullet points): > They [the twins] just don't seem to be able to land > *real* blows on the victims of their pranks. Ah, but what does it mean to land a *real blow* on the victim of a prank? This, to me, is one of the central questions, so we probably shouldn't just assume or declare that the twins don't land real blows. The idea of whether characters are capable of landing real blows seems central to the theory, so we probably will have to do our level best to work out what this means. How do we know if a character is landing a *real blow?* Well, in cartoons and in a fictional world of wizards, we could say there is *never* a real blow. Nothing in the wizarding world (or the animated world) functions according to the standards any of us in RL must abide by. But that can't be the end of the analysis. If it were, no Toon-ish character ?- a character in an entirely fictional world -- could ever land a blow. But as I demonstrated in my whimsical reference to Dr. Seuss, even the most simple children's fiction contains real bullies -? bullies depicted as animals with wide eyes and smiling faces, bullies speaking in verse and playing for laughs, but bullies landing real blows nonetheless. So how do we know if a character is landing a *real blow?* Well, we evaluate this using the only tools we have ? what the author tells us coupled with our own experiences. We use empathy. We imagine that this or that prank did or did not cause physical or psychological pain, based on the author's description of the prank in the text, the description of the aftermath in the text, and to some extent based on our understanding of the way our own world works. Were the twins functioning as Toons when they played the TTT prank? I don't know, but I'm still unsure what difference the label "Toon" makes. Even under the Toon theory, either the character caused needless physical or psychological pain to the victim ? thereby landing a *real blow* or they did not, regardless of whether they do it in the middle of a comedic scene or not. In the TTT prank, it is quite clear to me that the twins scored a *real blow* to Dudley, that it hurt, and that it might scar him emotionally the way the pig's tail episode scarred him. So did the TTT prank cause real pain? Yup. Did the twins land a real blow? Yup. I think so. How do we know? There's the language JKR uses, for one thing. "Horrible gagging sound." "Scream[ing]." "Gagging and sputtering." "Bellowing." "Panic stricken." "Sobbing hysterically." "Suffocating." Yeah, we get plenty of description of emotional and physical pain ? a *real blow* indeed. And for another thing, the twins *intended* to land a blow. That was the whole purpose of dropping the TTT on the floor. How can we now say that the twins didn't land a *real blow* when they set out with that very goal in mind and when their prank worked exactly according to plan? Dicentra: > What the Toon theory posits is that not all fictional characters >are created equal. Some of them react realistically, others don't. Here, again, I have trouble. Dudley reacts realistically. He gags and suffocates. His mother reacts realistically ? she panics and tries to remove the obstruction. His father reacts realistically ? he panics, attempting to attack Mr. Weasley and defend his family in the only way he knows how. Let me ask it this way. What would it take to push that scene in the direction of a more realistic reaction to what we see already? More screaming? Less screaming? Weeping? Begging? As it was, the reactions of the Dursleys seemed quite realistic to me ? given that we're operating in the magical world, of course. Now, if the Dursleys had done something else ? something to indicate they didn't feel threatened, that Dudley wasn't in pain, that none of this bothered them ? then *that* would have been an unrealistic and Toonish reaction ? the equivalent of Daffy strapping his beak back on and carrying on. But that's really not what happened in the TTT scene. Dicentra (on Toon!Trelawney): > Being a Toon has nothing to do with being liked or being forgiven. Maybe. Maybe. But I think one reason that list members find the Toon theory appealing is that it allows them to reconcile their discomfort at the idea of bullying and laughing at the pain of others with their desire to like two charismatic characters. So I would say that there is a relationship between being a Toon and being liked and forgiven -? not in the theory itself, but in the way it is being applied to excuse the twins' actions, but more importantly, our own reactions to those actions. Dicentra: > As for Trelawney, she can't seem to land blows on Harry either. To the extent that Trelawney acquires the ability to > really hurt someone she emerges from Toon status and becomes >real. Fair enough. The gist, then, is that Trelawney is a Toon and so far hasn't landed any real blows on Harry. But if we remove the element of whether Trelawney is a Toon, we are still left with the salient question ? did Trelawney or did she not inflict needless physical or emotional pain on Harry? Once we answer that question, does it matter whether she is written for laughs throughout the story or only in certain parts of the story or at no point in the story? > Cindy: > > I'm still noodling through this whole issue of slapstick and > come-uppance humor, but I think the bright line that separates whether > something is potentially amusing or is sickening is the extent to > which the victim is harmed, either on-screen or off-screen, including > the extent to which the offending act itself is portrayed in a > realistic light. In assessing whether the extent of the off-screen > harm, it is quite reasonable for readers and viewers to rely on their > own knowledge of the world and extrapolate what is hurtful and what is > painful. > Dicentra: > > Except with Toons you can't rely on your own experience. If I fell >off a 6,000-foot cliff and landed face down in the rock, I'd become a >puddle of skin, bones, and blood, and I'd be dead dead dead. It would >not be funny at all. Wile E. Coyote, however, falls off cliffs all >episode long. He's not harmed because he's a Toon. And it's >hysterical. Well, sometimes you can and sometimes you can't rely on your personal experience. It all depends on how the author describes an outlandish episode. I have no idea what it would be like to have my tongue swell to several feet long. But JKR thoughtfully advised us how this might feel. And it looked scary, painful and life- threatening ?- just like a *real blow.* As for the typical exaggerated injuries that animated characters suffer, you're right that this is often quite funny. I disagree, however, that the Toon is not harmed "because he is a Toon." The scene is funny so long as the viewer is not shown Wile E. Coyote with his guts splattered all over the canyon floor. We don't see the aftermath. He doesn't scream in pain. His face barely changes. He seems not to be bothered at all by his injuries. That indifference to injury is not what we see or imagine in the TTT scene or the train stomp scene. The victims in those scenes suffer *real blows.* > Cindy: > > Let's say we have a work of fiction. In it, one of the characters >is a black servant. Let's then assume that all of the characters >except for our black servant are white, and the black servant works >for all the white characters. ... OK. Now let's assume that the >white characters play practical jokes on our black servant. They >burn crosses in places where he can see them. They turn up in Klan >outfits. They tell racist jokes to the black character. Oh, the >white characters don't mean any harm, though. They never lay a hand >on our black servant character, and they adore him like a member of >the family, they really do. It's not intended to be malicious, and >it is not motivated by hatred. It's all in good fun, see? ... Would >anyone find this work of fiction funny? > Dicentra: > > I wouldn't. Even a mock representation of Klan violence, in which >the black character doesn't get hurt (he would just laugh it off), >would not strike me as funny. And the reason I wouldn't find it >funny is that it's Too Close To The Truth. In this hypothetical, I invited each of us to construct it in any way we wished. We had control over which characters were pranksters, which were minor, which were comedic, as well as the character and severity of the racist humor itself. And no matter how you re-arrange those elements, the answer is unchanged ? racist humor isn't funny. So doesn't that mean the Toon theory is beside the point -? that something else entirely dictates whether slapstick humor, come-uppance humor and the like is funny? Indeed, there was a reason why I gave several types of harassment examples. I assume that each of these examples (including the least threatening, the racist jokes), wouldn't be funny to anyone. Even if we take the hypothetical and depict every single harassment event entirely for laughs and as mildly as possible, it wouldn't be funny. Even if the characters in the work of fiction were all wide- eyed, lovable-looking animated characters, it still wouldn't be funny. That's because the Toonishness of the characters doesn't dictate whether the humor is funny, IMHO. Further, one reason I chose the example of racism is that I thought there might be a useful parallel between the example involving the Klan and the TTT scene. See, the Dursleys are *terrified* of All Things Magical. By GoF, the Dursleys have seen a wizard barge into their quarters in the middle of the night and give their son a pig's tail for no real reason. They have seen wizards damage their home on two occasions. Wizards are more powerful and muggles are defenseless. One can only imagine what else might have happened over the years to give the Dursleys such a tremendous fear of magic ?- fear so overwhelming that they would flee their home and purchase a firearm to protect themselves from it. That sounds a lot like how Klan victims view the Klan -? harassing and hurting defenseless people for no reason, abusing their power, even attacking in the middle of the night. So no. Klan humor isn't funny. And bullying humor (such as when powerful people pick on defenseless and weaker people) isn't funny to me, for a lot of the same reasons. Toons notwithstanding. Why, though? I think it is because whether the authorial voice tries to say the characters are Toon-ish is beside the point. Whether the author intends people to laugh at abuse is beside the point. And once the issue is serious enough, it isn't funny even if the perpetrator never lands a "real blow." No, I think the point is that we all use our own experiences, morals and understanding of the world (in addition to what the author tells us) to evaluate whether a form of injury or abuse is significant. It is the form of injury that is the most imporant factor in determining whether we will find the injury funny, IMHO, not whether the scene is played for laughs. Dicentra: > So it doesn't matter whether the motives of the twins are >malicious, whether the twins like their victims, whether they go >for weaker or stronger victims. It matters if the incident is >written as a joke (no one is hurt) or as a serious thing (someone >is hurt). And then ultimately it matters whether the reader has >been hurt by real-life pranks (or "pranks"). Well, I almost agree. Almost. The problem I have is with this statement: "It matters if the incident is written as a joke (no one is hurt) or as a serious thing (someone is hurt)." This statement assumes that if something is written as a joke, no one can be hurt. That strikes me as incorrect. My example involving race proved that is not the case -? that the scenes of racial harassment are presented as a joke does not make them funny. Not at all. And the TTT scene proved that a scene written as a joke can also have someone being hurt, right in front of our very eyes. I also find myself struggling with this statement: "And then ultimately it matters whether the reader has been hurt by real-life pranks (or "pranks")." Again, I'm not so sure about this. I haven't been bullied myself. I haven't been the victims of pranks ? certainly not to the extent of others on this list. Similarly, I can imagine that a person who has never been victimized by the Klan (or who is not even of a racial group that has been so victimized) would still not find Klan humor funny. A person doesn't have to be vulnerable herself to find no humor in the vulnerability of others. As you say, some things violate our sense of morality so thoroughly that no amount of comedic writing and timing will make them funny. This isn't something that necessarily depends, IMHO, on whether one has *personal* experience that leads to heightened sensitivity. ******************* Now what, though? Is it impossible to be against bullying (or mean- spirited behavior, if you prefer) and like the twins? Is it impossible to be appalled by police misconduct but like Real Moody? I certainly hope so. But we need a theory. We need some rationale that makes it logical to like a character, to defend a character, to appreciate a character despite flaws that cut to the heart of our core personal moral beliefs. Why, I seem to have a theory right here! A theory you all are more than welcome to use for target practice, if you want. I have no idea if it holds up or not. I'll just toss it out there. OK. As I mentioned in another post on this thread, someone pinned my ears back pretty good about my affection for Real Moody. In the Pensieve scene, Moody displays contempt for the criminal defendants, to the point of advocating that the government break its plea deal with Karkaroff after hearing his information. This sort of thing would be morally offensive to me normally as evidence of a Rogue Cop keen on abusing his position. Yet for some reason, I didn't even see that scene as problematic, let alone let it shake my affection for Moody. For months now, this has bugged me. So here's a theory: call it the "Mitigation Theory." See, Moody did display some traits consistent with a Rogue Cop. But he also displayed other traits inconsistent with a Rogue Cop -? chiefly being unwilling to kill if he could avoid it and being unwilling to sink to the level of the DEs. The connection between Moody's troublesome conduct and his mitigating conduct is direct -? sometimes he is a Rogue and sometimes he is not. As some have suggested on this thread, the twins have done plenty of nice things in canon. The difference between the twins and Moody, though, is that there is no direct connection between the twins' acts of kindness and their acts of malice -? the kind acts in no way mitigate the cruel acts because they are entirely unrelated. In other words, let's imagine that the twins played lots of practical jokes, but regularly interceded on behalf of weaker individuals who are not in their social circle. Or that they engaged in behavior toward the Dursleys that was protective and kind. That would raise some ambiguity in my mind sufficient to mitigate the malicious conduct they displayed in the TTT scene. As it stands, then, Moody has mitigated his Rogue Cop behavior by behaving like a Good and Conscientious Cop at times. When it comes to bullying behavior (or mean-spirited behavior or whatever you wish to call it), the twins have not mitigated their bullying behavior in any way that relates to bullying itself. As a result, I have more difficulty defending the twins, excusing their transgressions, and in the end, liking them as characters. OK. Now you can destroy that theory. Go ahead. I'm waiting. ;-) Cindy From skelkins at attbi.com Thu Aug 29 04:38:56 2002 From: skelkins at attbi.com (ssk7882) Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 04:38:56 -0000 Subject: Bully!Sirius, "Coach" Twins, Snape's Grudge, and Stoned!Harry In-Reply-To: <008301c24e1c$641a6f20$e68201d5@oemcomputer> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43316 People were astonished that I thought the twins behaved like bullies, and so I provided a list of the traits that researchers in the field have found over the years to typify people who bully in school. Irene read it, blinked, and then said: > Is it just me, or did anyone else at this point felt compelled to > say "Hello, Sirius Black!" ? Oh, excellent. A new topic! Well...er. Ish. Yes. It does describe Sirius rather well, I think, and I do believe that this is one of the main reasons that so many readers *do* jump to that conclusion that Sirius must have been a "popular bully" back in his schooldays. I touched briefly on this in that same post, actually, when while talking about the twins' dismissive manner of speaking of those they have designated outsiders, I tossed off as a quick parenthetical aside: > (It is also, I might point out, very similar to the sneering tone > with which Sirius Black always speaks of Severus Snape -- a > character touch which has led more than one reader to deduce that > Sirius himself might have been a bit of a bully back in his > schooldays). Indeed, I think that it is difficult for many people to read Sirius' sneers about "slimy, oily, greasy-haired" Snape in GoF, for example, and not see it as a quite recognizable depiction of the popular charismatic bully, all grown up and still utterly lacking in any particular sympathy for his adolescent victim. His derisive snort and sneering of "it served him right" in the Shrieking Shack also contributes to this impression, I think, as does his allowing Snape's head to bang on the ceiling as they make their way out of the shack. By then, of course, Sirius has perfectly valid reasons to be feeling more than a mite bit peevish about Snape -- I'd feel pretty darned cranky too if someone had gloated to me about handing me over to the dementors to be Kissed and wouldn't even *listen* to the proof of my innocence -- but all the same, I do think that these character touches combine to suggest a certain lack of maturity and perspective, as well as a weak balk instinct -- a refusal to respect others' vulnerabilities -- all of which are traits strongly associated with those inclined to bullying. It is revelatory behavior in much the same way that the twins' stepping on Malfoy et al at the end of GoF is revelatory behavior, IMO, and I do think that it serves to suggest certain things about Sirius' inclinations and tendencies, about his character. Irene: > I read the whole huge thread on bullies in one go, and it helped me > to answer a question that bothered me for a long time: why it seems > widely accepted opinion among Snapefans that Sirius was a "popular > bully" when canon gives us nothing to support that? Hmmm. Well, I'm also one of those Snapefans who definitely received the impression that Snape was hassled by James' group of friends, and particularly by Sirius, back in the day (we few, we happy few...), and I think that the extent to which Sirius matches the classic bully profile very likely *does* have much to do with the popularity of that reading. I don't know if I'd say that there is nothing to support this reading in the canon, though. No, no, seriously. A while back, Dicentra accused those who came by this reading of suffering from "fanfic contamination," and I have to say that this did strike me as a rather odd accusation, maybe just because I've read all the wrong fanfic. Most of what I've read has not gone particularly far in portraying the Marauders as Snape's boyhood tormentors. No, I'd say that those who felt, while reading the books, that Sirius was a charismatic bully in school and Snape a creepy outcast are suffering far less from "fanfic contamination" than they are from "real life contamination." And from "genre convention contamination." And from "comedic trope contamination." Not to mention from...well, from what I guess we might just call "canon contamination." Sirius *does* fit the personality profile of those who bully in school. Snape, on the other hand, struck me even from the very first book as a classic victim-bully. Most of the direct canonical support that one can cite to defend this reading comes from PoA and GoF, but I have to say that I found it an instinctive reading of the character long before PoA. I was reading Snape as the grown-up incarnation of the creepy unpopular kid from the start. PoA merely confirmed that reading for me. Genre conventions came strongly into play there, as did comedic trope. The nasty vindictive sarcastic schoolteacher who everyone knows just *had* to have been unpopular as a child is one of the classic comic figures of the school story. Even Buffy the Vampire Slayer, usually quite sympathetic to the "unpopular," has made use of it in its depiction of the reverted-to-teenagerhood Principal Snyder. It's a classic. (I'd also like to suggest here, BTW, the possibility that the use of this type as a "figure of fun" -- ie, a target of aggressive humor -- may well be slightly more common, as well as more socially acceptable, in the UK than in the US. Here in the US, having been "unpopular" as a child often carries with it a certain cache of moral virtue. "Popular" can be a bit of a bad word in some circles in the US, I think, because we tend to assume that all schoolboy targets are ipso facto innocent victims. I don't know, though, if this is necessarily as common an assumption in the UK. When I was living in Wales, for example, I frequently heard "you really weren't very popular in school, were you?" used as a snarky but light-hearted way of indicating to someone that their behavior had become obnoxious. So there may well be some cultural differences that come into play when it comes to our emotional responses to textual indications that Good Guys like James and Sirius used to pick on Snape quite a lot -- very much, in fact, as I suspect there may be some trans-Atlantic issues that come into play when we talk about the twins.) Snape really does fit this comic type, I think, as well as matching up rather closely, IMO, to our real world understanding of unpopular students who grow up to take out all of their adolescent frustrations on the world at large. And you don't have to look all that deeply into the text to find evidence of who Snape himself likely perceived as his childhood tormentor, do you? Who does he hate? Whose athletic prowess makes him absolutely snarl? Whose child does he go out of his way to victimize? I do think that it's a fairly instinctive reading of PS/SS, and PoA merely confirms the reader's suspicions. It not only gives us the pr*nk, it also gives us Sirius Black and the Marauder's Map. And it also, as Irene points out, gives us a direct and authorially suggested parallelism between James and Sirius and the twins. Irene wrote: > And after some soul-searching I think it's a projection of Fred and > George pair to James and Sirius. As was established, it is > possible to make a solid case of the twins being popular bullies > based on the canon (solid case does not mean the prosecution is > necessarily going to win it, mind). Is there some basis to > establish similarity between the two pairs? Several characters > comment on how the twins remind them about James and Sirius: > McGonagall, Madame Rosmerta and Hagrid, if I'm not mistaken. So it > is possible the canon works on some subconscious level and makes > Sirius "guilty by association". Yes. The text does go out of its way to lead us to draw that generational parallel, I think, not only through the comments of McGonagall, Rosmerta and Hagrid, but also (and I think perhaps even more powerfully) through the Marauder's Map, which serves as a physical and tangible link between generations: both the literal generations of Father James and Son Harry, and also the "school generations" of soon-to-be-leaving-school twins and soon-to-be- upperclassman Harry. "Noble men," Fred says of MWPP, "working tirelessly to help a new generation of law-breakers." The twins' bestowal of the map upon Harry is not merely a gift. It is a *legacy.* "We bequeath it to you," George says, and he is only half-joking. With the conferral of the map come certain rights and responsibilities above and beyond that of simple mischief-making. It is not only to be used for selfish purposes. Later on in the series, the twins will borrow it back from Harry briefly in order to provide the supplies for a party for Gryffindor House as a whole. This is the twins' social function, their self-perceived duty, and the Map is an essential tool in fulfilling that function. By "bequeathing" it to Harry, they have effectively declared him as their heir apparent. When they are gone, bucking up the morale of the House in this fashion will be Harry's job. Tabouli has written of the twins' role "coaches," whose job is to lead the House, in part, through bolstering the Gryffindors' morale. Abigail also touched on this aspect of the twins' role, when she wrote about the scene at the end of GoF, in which Harry exhorts the twins to serve a similar function for the WW as a whole. In this respect, Harry's bestowal of his prize winnings onto the twins parallels the bequeathment of the Marauder's Map. Just as the twins are the defenders of Gryffindor House, so Harry is the defender of the Wizarding World; just as the twins inspire and moralize members of their House through their activities, so Harry inspires and moralizes the WW by simple virtue of his continued survival. Just as the twins have appointed Harry to step into their shoes as they leave school, so Harry then appoints the twins to serve *his* function in the adult world while he himself is prevented from doing so fully by virtue of still being a schoolboy. So the Map is a legacy item. It is not merely a useful device, but also a symbol. It represents a specific social function. With its conferral come duties and obligations. It is passed down across the generations. It bridges the gap between the twins and Harry. It bridges the gap between Harry and his father. And in doing all of that, I think that it also links Sirius and James with Fred and George in a very powerful way. The Map's *explicit* function is to serve as an aid to "Magical Mischief-Makers." Its implicit function is to serve as a tool to those who help to bolster the morale of the House. But what else does the Map do? ----------------- "As though an invisible hand was writing upon it, words appeared on the smooth surface of the map. "'Mr Moony presents his compliments to Professor Snape, and begs him to keep his abnormally large nose out of other people's business' "Snape froze. Harry stared, dumbstruck, at the message. But the map didn't stop there. More writing was appearing beneath the first. "'Mr Prongs agrees with Mr Moony, and would like to add that Professor Snape is an ugly git' "It would have been very funny if the situation hadn't been so serious. And there was more... "'Mr Padfoot would like to register his astonishment that an idiot like that ever became a Professor.' "Harry closed his eyes in horror. When he'd opened them, the map had had its last word. "'Mr Wormtail bids Professor Snape good day, and advises him to wash his hair, the slimeball.'" -------------------- An implicit part of the social function that the map represents is the targetting of the designated enemy for mockery and abuse. Small wonder that Snape "freezes!" I think that it is safe to assume that this unpleasant little encounter with the map is serving as a most unwelcome revisitation of the past for him, just as his journey to the Shrieking Shack later on in the book will have nightmare overtones of a revisitation of the night of the infamous pr*ank. The Map does not seem to be a Riddle's Diary. It does not chat with Harry. It does not, for example, allow him to have virtual conversations with a kind of ghost of his father as a teenager. It does not seem anywhere close to fully sentient. It does occasionally show signs of self-awareness -- as when it reveals to Harry the secret of getting past the statue -- but it would seem to do so only when this is a necessary adjunct to its actual function. So the implication to my mind is that insulting Snape *is* in some sense a part of the Map's function. It is part and parcel of the social role which the Map represents, the same social role that the Twins have occupied within House Gryffindor: they defend and build up the morale of "us" in part by levelling their aggression against designated members of "them." This is what the Map does. It is what the twins do. I find it very difficult to imagine that it was not something that James and Sirius used to do as well. Certainly, I personally find it simply impossible to read this scene without coming to the conclusion that the map's little zingers are in fact *precisely* the sort of verbal abuse with which James and his friends used to taunt Snape back in their schooldays. The Map's insults are fundamentally childish. They are *schoolboy* insults: "abnormally large nose," "ugly git," "idiot," "slimeball," "advises him to wash his hair." They are also precisely the sort of insults that get levelled against creepy unpopular kids by their socially superior adversaries. The focus on physical detail is particularly suggestive of this dynamic. We know that Snape is not, and has never been, an attractive fellow. Sirius, on the other hand, was "handsome," handsome enough that even a thirteen-year-old boy can identify him as such from a photograph. Sirius and James were popular not only with the student body, but also with their teachers and other adults. Hagrid, Rosmerta, Flitwick and McGonagall all speak of their schoolboy incarnations with undeniable fondness, and in Rosmerta and McGonagall's lines, I detect hints of attraction as well. James and Sirius would seem to have been attractive to women. We have never seen any sign of Snape exercising an equal romantic appeal, or for that matter, *any* romantic appeal. (Er, well, within the *canon,* that is.) Nor have we seen any signs that he was at all well-liked by his teachers or other adults. Indeed, Snape's indignation, even some twenty years after the fact, over the outcome of the prank strongly suggests that from *his* perspective, at any rate, there had been strong bias in play. So yes. I do think that it is quite strongly suggested by the canon that Snape was often taunted by James and his friends back in their schooldays, as well as that they held the upper hand in terms of social popularity. Everything about the Map's insults speaks to me of just such a dynamic. In fact, I see this dynamic as rather central to the endgame of PoA, and I believe that it is precisely to establish it firmly in the reader's mind that JKR included the encounter with the Map in the same chapter that also first hints at the prank -- the chapter that is entitled "Snape's Grudge." The chapter title is significant, IMO. Grudge-holding is indeed Snape's great hamartia, but one does not generally refer to someone as "holding a grudge" if they did not have an at least somewhat legitimate cause for grievance in the first place. Snape has a sense of grievance that he is just not letting go; that he is not letting it go is a problem, but that he should ever have developed it in the first place is not; and I think that the encounter with the Map is written into this scene not merely to serve a comedic function, but also to lead the reader to this understanding. What is eating away at Snape is not mere envy, and it is not mere malice. It is a sense of thwarted *justice,* and one that derives from rather more than the fact that Sirius Black once tried to feed him to a werewolf, that nobody was ever expelled for this, and that Snape himself wound up with an utterly unwanted debt (whether "official" life-debt or debt of honor) to a hated rival as a result. The prank may have been the most blatant and egregious *manifestation* of what Snape is holding a grudge over, but it is hardly the entire story, and I think that the encounter with the Map -- and what it implies about Snape's past relationship with attractive, popular, athletic, brilliant Sirius and James -- is there to show us a bit more of the story. It serves to define somewhat more clearly the social context in which the prank took place. Like Sirius' sneering, it compells us to read the prank not as an isolated incident, but as a reflection of an entire social dynamic, one that is fundamentally a dynamic of injustice. Without that understanding, the parallelism between Snape and Sirius in the Shrieking Shack (and beyond!) loses a great deal of its raw power and impact, IMO, as does the entire endgame of PoA. There are strong parallels between Snape's encounter with the Map and the prank itself, parallels which will later be extended to encompass the entire endgame of PoA -- and I again, I think that these are essential for establishing in the reader's mind the full nature and extent of Snape's sense of grievance. The language with which Snape tries to read the map is to my mind highly suggestive. "Reveal your secrets," he commands it. Sirius will describe him later as always "sneaking around" after James and his gang, trying to get them in trouble. Snape is trying to force the map to reveal its secrets in the first place in order to prove that Harry has been "out of bounds," in violation of the school rules. As a teenager, he tried to learn the secrets of MWPP in similar hopes of proving them out of bounds, and by doing so to get them in trouble with the authorities. And of course, in the endgame of PoA, Snape makes his way to the Shrieking Shack one last time, his use of the invisibility cloak once more placing his behavior firmly into the Slytherinesque category of "sneaking," hoping to apprehend Remus and Sirius, whom he believes to be dangerous criminals, and hand them over to the authorities for justice. And he gets trounced, each and every time. He does not learn the secrets of the Marauder's Map. Instead, the Map insults him. He does learn Lupin's secret, but only at the terrible cost of being saddled with a debt (whether "official" life-debt or merely debt of honor) to James. And at the end of PoA, he winds up first knocked unconscious, then foiled in his attempts to ensure that Black finally gets punished for his crimes, and finally dismissed as a raving lunatic by the Minister of Magic himself. Who was it who made the comment that history may not repeat itself, but it rhymes? Poor Severus just can't catch a break, can he, and JKR plays that fact for pathos as well as for laughs, I'd say. I do think that we are meant to read a certain degree of pathos into this portrayal of Snape as the constant voyeur: a hostile outsider, yes, but always an outsider trying to look in. I also think that the reader is meant to sympathize a great deal with Snape when he finally Just Plain Snaps at the end of PoA, even while also laughing at him. Certainly I've always found that sequence just plain heart-breaking, even while I also take enjoyment in its (*deeply* malicious!) humour. (Wasn't it you, Irene, who once cited end of PoA as just plain killer in terms of Snape sympathy? I seem to remember wanting to slip a "me too" at the end of a sig sometime to you for that one, but then somehow never quite managed to get around to it.) So in short , I certainly do think that there are a number of things in the text which support a reading of Sirius as a bully. I also think that this is partially a reflection of the series' thematic approach to questions of power, justice, vengeance and mercy. Sirius may be depicted as a bullying type, but the text emphasizes quite strongly that James himself was not, in that he did respect vulnerability, he did know when things were going too far, and he had a very well-developed balk instinct. This aspect of his persona is absolutely *pounded* home to us in PoA, I'd say. James went after Snape and saved him from the potentially lethal effects of the Prank. Pettigrew claims that James would have shown him mercy. Harry (on the basis of no real evidence, mind) concurs; he cites James as his role model in prevailing upon Sirius and Remus to spare Peter's life. And when at the end of the novel, Harry's patronus takes the form of James' animagus form, when he is told that he truly is his father's son, we as readers are inclined to believe that indeed mercy, the balk instinct, the willingness to overlook even genuine grievance in the face of another's profound weakness, must have been one of James' primary characteristics. By emphasizing these aspects of James' character, while also providing us with evidence that Sirius himself lacks those traits, I think that the text is drawing an important distinction between the traditional values of House Gryffindor and the WW's warrior culture, which while admittedly useful are also inherently ethically flawed, and the values which are being set forth as the truly *heroic* alternatives: those which are capable both of transcending the usual dynamics of conflict and strife, and of effecting the spiritual transformation of man. Sirius and the twins (who "take care" to step on Malfoy et al in the train at the end of GoF) represent the former. James and Harry (who takes care to step *over* them) stand in for the latter, as does Lily, whose self-sacrifice served to circumvent the normative zero-sum equation of conflict in the WW. Here we touch on TBAY's Stoned!Harry: Harry as the living embodiment of the Philosopher's Stone, as an agent of spiritual renewal and transcendence. By intervening in the Shrieking Shack, Harry is not really saving Pettigrew at all. (If Pettigrew is to be saved, which I rather suspect that he is, then that will come later; right now, the poor devil is just about as lost as they come.) Harry may be setting the *groundwork* for Pettigrew's later development, but he is not saving him. He is saving *Sirius* (and also Remus), just as James once saved Sirius and Remus by intervening in the prank, and just as Harry and James will soon symbolically unite to save Sirius from the dementors. By intervening to insist upon the recognition of a higher moral code than "he deserves it," Harry is acting as an agent of transformative and redemptive moral change, one which can serve to heal both the wounds of injustice and the wounds of the past. There is no direct confrontation with Voldemort in PoA in part, I believe, because Harry's role as savior in PoA is absolutely not defined in terms of his ability to overcome his antagonists in any direct fashion. Rather, it is defined in terms of his ability to inspire spiritual transformation in others and in doing so, to begin to correct some of the problems of power with which the series is so intimately concerned. -- Elkins who was unsurprised that there was a gleam in Dumbledore's eye From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Thu Aug 29 09:02:58 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 09:02:58 -0000 Subject: The Scale of Things In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43317 Chris wrote: > Hi, All > > Am I the only one who has been having doubts about the scale of the > Potterverse? The size of the Wizarding World and the threat of > Voldemort are both contradictory. > > Lets start with the Wizarding World. Is it a subset of British > society, in the sense that its British, not a world wide > organisation? The existence of other Wizarding schools suggests that > there must be a wizard (pun not intended) organisation in every > county - at least most of them - and the Ministry of Magic has links > with the muggle government. But for the Wizarding world to be so > large, the wizards must be at least one percent of the population > (roughly 0.2 million), and Hogwarts does not appear to be large > enough to cater for all their children. > > It has been suggested that Hogwarts does not take every pupil, but > they do send out invitations to muggle-borns, which suggests that the > school is not exclusive. All of the wizards seem to be represented > there, Malfloy's rub shoulders with Weasley's, for example. In which > case, there must be other British Schools, even though canon appears > to deny this. Listees who know about population ratios and the minimun number of people to support an economy as seen in Diagon Alley and Hogsmeade have concluded that the 1000 figure JKR is enough. Elkins has recently given us the numbers (Thank you!), but does not adress the *other* problem: canon contradicts JKR's 1000 students figure. So, I think it's time to bring back a theory of a fellow listee that adresses this problem quite satisfactorily: Catlady_de_los_Angeles is the author of the theory, which I normally call "Multiple Campus Hogwarts" As you've probably guessed, the theory says that Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry is divided on a number of campuses and hidden in diverse places all over Britatin. This division makes sense, since a big concentration of magic and wizards at one point always causes trouble, and is easier to hide (say) four small schools than one big one. At this point, people against the theory point out that the place Harry goes to is designated as *the* Hogawarts, but this is no big deal: in my experience, the main campus is always refered to with the name of the whole school, while the other campuses receive lesser names. And indeed Harry's school is *the* main campus. The theory says that only the most talented wizards get the chance to be taken to Hogwart's main campus (I'd also add those that come from very influential wizarding families, to explain Neville, Crab and Goyle). The rest of the wizarding children are taken to the other campuses, that are staffed with their own vice-headmasters (Dumbledore is headmaster of all Hogwarts, AND headmaster of the main campus) and their own teachers. The other campuses would also be divided into the four traditional houses, since they are more recent than Hogwarts, and probably appeared when the wizard population got bigger. At the point where the number of students were becoming unmanageable, other campuses were spawned, but kept the same structure. Those campuses might be connected to Hogwarts in some way (clever use of portkeys, for example), but I find more probable that they aren't as well protected as the main campus (unplotabilty, apparition-ban, etc.) and they can use floo powder to get to Hogsmeade and back. If the students from other campus can visit Hogwarts, it helps to explain the widely different number of students we see: they may come for particularly important (or simply all) quidditch matches, balls, etc. In fact, it's altoghether possible, anyway, that the quidditch teams are formed with students from all the campus, and that some of the students travel everyday from their respective campus to practice with the team in the school's quidditch ground (after all, quidditch grounds have to be very far from muggle places, and the other schools might not be correctly placed). This idea is more difficult to accept, since we know that the entire Gryffindor team is at the main campus, and so are all the people Harry knows in the other teams, but it might be the other way round: Harry only mentions those peple he *does* know in the other tems from seing them around the school. And that's the "multiple campus Hogwarts" theory as I remember it. Hopefully, if I've got few of the details wrong it's author will be around to correct me. > We know that Voldemort is the most powerful wizard - aside perhaps > from Dumbledore - in the Wizarding World, but on what scale does he > operate? Is he leading an effective rebellion, such as Oliver > Cromwell did, or is he just a super-powered terrorist? People in the > books were talking about him wanting to take over the Wizarding > World, but can he do that? If there are 0.2 million wizards, he's > out numbered heavily and all they have to do is gather together at a > safe place and crush him. Can anyone explain these contradictions? > > Chris And here is were my favourite theory enters: MAGIC DISHWASHER. This theory says that Voldemort's first Reign of Terror was a terrorist war waged in the darkness and fought with psycological weapons and, especially, information. By what we've been able to piece toghether from what little information we've been given so far, Voldemort was winning the war: his DE had the run of the place and the WW had been almost terrorized into submision by carefully comited atrocities. I have recently reached the conclusion that Voldemort was aiming for a social breakdown which allowed him to take control of the WW before turning his attention to the rest of Europe. Also, don't be so quick to ignore Voldemort's numbers. He had many DEs at his service (many being 20-50), which are more than enough for a terrorist war (my country's own active terorists are less than that), and consider that there must be a good number of people who, willing or unwillingly, support Voldemort's plans by providing him with money, spell/potion components and whatever he feals like asking. And finally, he has the Imperius, which can boost his numbers and dwindle the oposition's, which can be used to gather information and break down oposing armies. And the fact is that in this kind of war, information is more important and powerful than any spell. You suggest, for example, that everyone in the WW go forward as one and attack Voldemort directly: for that to be possible, you first have to know *where* Voldemort is, besides managing to convince the chiken-livered people to come with you (not everyone is prepared to face Voldemort and his DE's AKs). As the situation stands now (after being re-corporated), Voldemort has been busy restablishing his old network of power and information (i.e. pushing peope around so they start doing what he wants once again), and has probably already sent people to contact his old allies (giants, trolls) and to get new ones (dementors), and I think his goals may have changed, if he actually listens to his DEs (which I and MAGIC DISHWASHER think he does). Right now, the situation os ripe for another way of taking over the WW: Fudge is going to make an ass of himself by announcing that Voldemort isn't back (the first few times Voldemort flexes his muscles), and when it is revealed just how incompetent Fudge is, the wizards and witches all over the WW will want him substituted. By what we've seen so far, the most probable options at that point would be Dumbledore (which would refuse) and Lucius Malfoy, who the last time was still view as a possible ally of Voldemort, but which this time is very popular and influential. If Voldemort manages to put Malfoy in the Ministry, the WW will be his almost by default. Hope that helps, Grey Wolf From eloiseherisson at aol.com Thu Aug 29 11:03:36 2002 From: eloiseherisson at aol.com (eloiseherisson at aol.com) Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 07:03:36 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Toon Talk (WAS Who Framed Fred and George?) Message-ID: <9b.2cbc15b4.2a9f5988@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 43318 Cindy: > As it stands, then, Moody has mitigated his Rogue Cop behavior by > behaving like a Good and Conscientious Cop at times. When it comes > to bullying behavior (or mean-spirited behavior or whatever you wish > to call it), the twins have not mitigated their bullying behavior in > any way that relates to bullying itself. As a result, I have more > difficulty defending the twins, excusing their transgressions, and > in the end, liking them as characters. > > OK. Now you can destroy that theory. > I would never dare, Cindy....... But I have a problem with the parallel. You see, Moody can be a Good Cop or a Rogue Cop, two manifestations of being *a cop*. The twins can hardly mitigate being Bad Bullies (for the sake of the argument) by being Good Bullies, if we are to regard all forms of bullying as wrong. In fact the nearest to 'good bullying' that has been provided as RL examples involves standing up for siblings which seems to me to be related to Tabouli's 'team coach' function. They can only mitigate bullying behaviour if this is what they display, by caring action and this, as you say they do sometimes display. But you don't accept this in mitigation. Presumably they can only be mitigated by making reparation to the injured parties themselves? This is problematic as, as far as I can recall, the only victims whom we truly see as *injured* are Draco et al and Dudley (and by extension his family), both of whom have an 'enemy' function within the narrative, at least at present. These are the only two incidents which I think are indicitive of actual malice and at the same time they are the only two incidents which seem to have a motive beyond careless high spirits. In both cases, the victims are themselves bullies and moreover seem to have been set up by JKR to have that fuction within the narrative. I'll come back to Dudley. Much of their humour (or 'humour', if you don't appreciate it) is directed against family members and, although I know the Weasley family dynamic seems to be changing, there seems to me to be no doubt that they are fundamentally involved in and care for their family. They *want* Percy to join them for Christmas dinner, no matter how much they taunt him. (And yes, there may well be a cultural dimension here: they are young British males and ragging is a much more comfortable way of showing affection than anything which might be interpreted as sentimental.) Similarly, much of their humour/ 'humour' is directed against other members of their House, for whom they are popular team players, both literally and metaphorically, in the way Tabouli pointed out. I don't see them waging a bullying campaign against the weak, which could be then mitigated by their standing up for the weak. And in any case, we don't know how much they get up to (good or bad) that we don't see. Perhaps they do stand up for people a lot and this is part of their popularity, just as JKR has told us that Harry *does* give presents to his friends, although we never see it. OK, before you raise that yellow flag, it's not in canon. In fact I think we're coming back to the fundamental schism between those who want to say they *are bullies* and those who don't. You were right, Cindy, when you said that these discussions alter the way we look at the text. Before this started, I was pretty neutral on the twins. They amused me and I didn't look much deeper than that. I think I can say now that, with the greatest respect, I am firmly on the side of those who say they are not bullies. This is partly because of the implication that defending them from the charge indicates a psychological desire to run from the fact that we might have committed the sin of *liking* bullies. As it happens, I'm not sure that I *do* like them; I find them funny and that's not the same thing. (As a parallel, some of you may know the British comedy series _Bottom_, starring Rick Mayal and Adrian Edmonson. I have to admit I find it funny, although I find the characters themselves stomach-churningly revolting. Incidentally, it indulges in a lot of Toon-type humour, with the most apalling injuries being inflicted, but no-one ever actually hurt. I did say British humour often wasn't subtle.) And before anyone can say that I've put in a get-out clause there, by saying that liking and being amused by aren't the same, as everyone knows already, I am not afraid to admit a liking for at least one bully in the series! I just think that the evidence is simply not there to label them as bullies, whilst at the same time disliking labelling. In RL, if we label someone, the end result is often that they start to live up to the label, particularly where children are concerned. In the fictional case before us, I think that if we have once decided to label the twins as bullies, then we will tend to interpret them in that light. Labelling in (IMHO) may also come perilously close to demonising. We tend to demonise that which we do not like within ourselves. Look at Voldemort. Now, about the Toon thing. I think there is a point in Dicentra's and Tabouli's and Ali's and my own posts which is not being picked up, which is that there is not simply a stark choice between interpreting the twins as either Toons, or non-Toons, or between their being bullies, or not bullies. There may in fact be several things going on, the different layers, or planes of interpretation that we have referred to. My own feeling is that there is some inconsistency in their characterisation and that *sometimes*, as Dicey has been at pains to emphasise, they function as Toons and sometimes they don't. Now this does make it very difficult for the reader who wants to make a nice, integrated interpretation of the series,as we tend to here. I think perhaps it's just not possible. As I and others have pointed out, these are not the only inconsistencies. I suggested that Harry's lack of psychological scarring from his abusive upbringing stems from the fact that that part of the story is mythic/fairytale-inspired. Dicey made a similar point, only suggesting that the Dursleys are Toons. Similarly, Dumbledore is held to be JKR's embodiment of wisdom and goodness in the series, yet his actions at the end of PS/SS, argued over at length in the the 'Dissing the Slyths' thread are highly partisan. It seems to be an inconsistency in his character. I would rather see it as an authorial lapse in characterisation, with character being sacrificed for the sake of drama. But it just seems a shame to me, if we cut ourselves off from one level of enjoyment of the books because of an awareness of another way of interpreting them. ********************************** Right. The Dursleys and the TTToffee. This is an intriguing incident. I think that it has Toonish elements but agree with Cindy that because it has 'real' consequences, it is not. Superficially it's a real clash of writing styles, farce that becomes serious. The message seems to be that the twins' actions are to say the least misguided, whether sadistic or a justifiable attempt at retribution, it is, as has been pointed out, perilously close to Muggle-baiting and this is certainly how Arthur treats it. I think that underlying what we must be intended to laugh at is a serious message. It forshadows the Muggle baiting that we see at the QWC (performing the literary function of introducing that topic) and demonstrates how easy it is to cross the line. It's almost as if JKR backpedals: she presents something farcical and then demonstrates that it's not funny really. Perhaps she's doing something really quite clever, tricking the reader, in fact. Because don't we want to get back at Dudley for all the things he's done to Harry? No? OK, perhaps it's just me then. So we (because the Weasleys are part of the Harry group with which we identify) do get back at him and then she pulls the carpet out from under our feet and tells us, via Arthur, that that's just not the way to do it. I have to say, though that I think Hagrid's treatment of Dudley is even worse, given that he doesn't yet know about how Harry has been systematically bullied, he does nothing to remedy the situation and is totally unrepentant. ********************** Oh, yes. I decided to get my 12 year old's reaction to the question of whether the twins are bullies. After being greeted by initial incredulity, I rephrased the question. On the subject of the TTToffee, the reaction was that it wasn't bullying because 'he's a fat git'. Sorry about that. I will tackle the sizeist (?sp) issue there. On the train incident, the justification was that Draco is 'an evil git'. Neville and the Canary Creams? 'That's not bullying, that's one of their jokes.' Quirrell and the snowballs? 'I'd do that!' Well, yes. It sounds very much like the way almost every child in his class treats one particular teacher. OK, not very well thought out, but I think somewhere on a par with F&G's own mentality. And yes, the child concerned does sometimes indulge in behaviour which could be interpreted as bullying, without even the mitigation of being humorous (within the family only, as far as I am aware. At school he is considered thoughful and responsible in his behaviour towards others.) But I won't label him as a bully. He's a boy who hasn't finished learning about how to treat other people and who exercises least discretion where those closest to him are concerned. As I think, on the whole, do Fred and George. Eloise Who would like to emphasise here that I do recognise why some individuals' personal experiences do make them react strongly against the twins. I have a real respect for all the people who have contributed to this thread, even if I don't necessarily agree with everything they say and I desperately hope I haven't said anything to offend. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From skelkins at attbi.com Thu Aug 29 14:38:25 2002 From: skelkins at attbi.com (ssk7882) Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 14:38:25 -0000 Subject: Twins, Toons, Humor and Instinct In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43319 Dicentra wrote: > First, let me preface this with some clarifications. I wrote my > initial "Toon" analysis of the twins waaaaay back last Friday > [43083]. Two hundred messages later, it seems that some people > [both who agree and disagree with me] have inadvertently misread > what I was saying and have assumed I meant things I didn't mean. > I'll take the responsibility for that: a good essay shouldn't be so > easy to misread, and obviously I didn't craft it well enough. No, Dicentra. Your essay was beautifully crafted, and the fault was my own. It *had* been a while, and I think that I must have improperly conflated a statement of Abigail's with your own intent. This was the statement that I had been remembering: > Fred and George Weasly, as the chief suppliers of comic relief in > the books, tend to be responsible for most of these actions, but I > find it hard to believe that we are meant to read any insight from > this into their character. I had been responding in large part to that sentiment. But as Amy pointed out, that had not in fact been your argument, and I do apologize for misrepresenting your views. I'd also like to thank you for extending to me the benefit of the doubt conveyed by that word "inadvertently." I appreciate that a great deal, as I honestly *hadn't* meant to go jousting after straw men in that message, and I'm glad for the opportunity to correct my error. > The core of the "Toon" argument is not that the cartoonish scenes > are somehow apart from the rest of the text. It is rather that the > twins engage in behavior that has the *form* of bullying, but not > the *substance*. It's mock violence instead of real violence. Okay. I think that I see your point, which if I'm understanding it correctly is that whether or not something really constitutes "violence" is determined by its actual *effect.* The *substance* of violence is harm. So an action is only a "violent act" if it causes harm. If it does not cause harm, then no violence has really been committed. Since cartoon violence doesn't really do any harm -- Toons just pick themselves right up again and go on their merry way -- therefore the actions themselves cannot properly be described as violent acts. The perpetrators of said actions are therefore not really committing violence, and so it is inappropriate to ascribe to them a label ("bully," for example) which implies that they have caused harm. Is that right? I suppose that there are two reasons that I can't myself adopt this approach. The first reason is one that you yourself touch on here: > The twins themselves, however, aren't the ones who decided to make > it mock violence--JKR did. Yes, precisely. I suppose that it is largely because of that that I still feel that the labels are appropriate. From the perspective of the *Toons,* their actions are still "real" because they share the same reality as all of the other Toons. So a Toon bully, for example, can still be called a bully, even though he is a Toon, because he is still engaging in bullying behavior. It just means that he is a "Toon bully." Elmer Fudd, for example, is a Toon, and he is also a hunter. The fact that he is incapable of actually catching or killing or harming Bugs Bunny -- or any other animal, for that matter -- in any permanent or meaningful fashion does not, to my way of thinking, really make him any less of a hunter. It just means that he is a Toon hunter, rather than a real one. The second reason that I have some trouble with this approach is the one that I touched upon in my last message: namely, that the "Toonishness" of the characters in the books often varies from scene to scene, and that actions taken at one level of cartoonishness can sometimes have ramifications that emerge later on at a different level. So it's hard for me to imagine, for example, how I would be able to read the scene between Arthur and the kids in the aftermath of TTT, if I didn't accept the Dursleys' terror as real, and the twins' actions as therefore constituting Muggle-baiting. On this topic, Amy wrote: > The Ton-Tongue Toffee skates along the border of Muggle-baiting, > yes (since their Muggle victim is more terrified by it than a > wizard one would be), even though I agree with Elkins that they > were not cognizant of this at the time. I love her point that it is > on the light end of an increasingly dark progression of wizard-on- > Muggle violence portrayed in GF (not in the Pensieve, though; in > chapter 27. There is nothing about attacks on Muggles in the > Pensieve). Oops. Didn't make myself clear there, I guess. I'm glad you liked that reading, Amy, but I think that it's actually yours. In fact, I think I may like it better than my own. So, uh, well done! ;^> When I wrote about TTT presaging both QWC and Pensieve, I actually didn't mean to be referring to wizard-on-muggle violence. I was referring to the phenomenon of normal regular people, "goodies," behaving in ways that the text portrays as wicked, yet without any apparent recognition of the fact that that is what they are actually doing. I tend to view the increased incidence of this phenomenon as one of the signs of the series' growing moral complexity, and I laud it. All of the people who join the Muggle-baiting parade at the QWC, for example, cannot possibly be Death Eaters. There are too many of them for that, and their numbers *grow* as the scene progresses. They're not criminals or evil-doers or anything of the sort. They're just regular old witches and wizards who had been drinking a bit too much and got caught up in the mood of the mob, and they don't seem to have any real self-awareness of the fact that they are doing something strikingly wicked. Similarly, the crowd in the Pensieve, screaming and hissing and jeering at the sentencing, are presumably all decent people. They're supposedly on the side of "good." But they have been carried away by emotion, and it has led them to behave in a manner that is described quite chillingly. Their behavior comes across as very nearly diabolic -- and yet we understand that they are ordinary people, people who could live next door to you. TTT presages those scenes, to my mind, because the twins are "good guys." They're Harry's allies. They're Harry's friends. They are not racists, and they object when their father accuses them of having been Muggle-baiting. But they *were* Muggle-baiting. They're characters who aren't "baddies," doing a thing that the text condemns in no uncertain terms as a signifier of "badguyness." That was my reading of TTT in the context of the novel as a whole, at any rate. But it sort of falls apart for me if I try to deny the reality of the Dursleys' fear. It makes Arthur deluded -- it means that he is *wrong* about what just happened at the Dursley residence - - and that really just doesn't work for me at all. Dicey suggested: > As for Arthur and Molly's reaction to the episode, they don't see > the Dursleys as Toons. They see them as ordinary muggles, and they > see the twins' behavior as muggle-baiting, regardless of whether > Dudley can be hurt or not. But if the twins can perceive that the Dursleys are Toons, then why can't Arthur and Molly? And if the twins *can't* perceive that the Durlseys are Toons, then what possible bearing does the fact that the Dursleys are Toons have on the question of what the twins' behavior reveals about their character? -- Elkins From skelkins at attbi.com Thu Aug 29 15:00:07 2002 From: skelkins at attbi.com (ssk7882) Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 15:00:07 -0000 Subject: Toon Talk (WAS Who Framed Fred and George?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43320 Cindy quoted: > Dicentra (about the distinction between which characters' injuries > are funny and which are not)... Oh, *wait!* Wait, wait, wait. Is *that* what this conversation is really about? It's about when a fictional character getting hurt is FUNNY? Oh, but hold up, now. Just hold up. Surely humor is *subjective,* isn't it? There are a lot of different types of humor that involve people getting hurt or injured, and all of them follow different rules. So is this really something that we want to be *arguing* over? Surely we're not saying that some types of humor are morally superior to others, are we? It almost looks to me as if this is becoming a debate about whether or not people *ought* to find certain things funny, and I don't know if I'm at all comfortable with that. Humour is pretty instinctive, isn't it? And it is hardly ever "moral." I've just gone back and read Dicey's original Toon post, and I think that perhaps we need to draw a distinction here between two *completely* different things: (a) when it makes sense to consider a fictional character's behavior a reflection of his character (b) when it is morally acceptable to laugh at something you read in a book My own answers to these two questions are as follows: (a) always (b) always -- Elkins From coriolan_cmc at hotmail.com Thu Aug 29 15:15:43 2002 From: coriolan_cmc at hotmail.com (coriolan_cmc2001) Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 15:15:43 -0000 Subject: Arthur Weasley In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43321 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "fyredriftwood" wrote: >> Cheers, > --Fyre Wood > Ps: I have a songfilk I want to upload to this group? Am I allowed to > do so? Yes, filks are often posted to this site. If you enter the word "filk" in the "Search Archive" box on the right hand side of the screen, you can review what others have recently posted. Most of the filks on my website were first posted to HP4GU. - CMC HARRY POTTER FILKS http://home.att.net/~coriolan/hpfilks.htm From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Aug 29 16:04:18 2002 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 16:04:18 -0000 Subject: The Twins vs Percy, family dynamics Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43322 Elkins said this: >>Similarly, in GoF the twins *ought* to know that their pranks cause Percy distress. They are old enough and bright enough to understand that continual harassment bothers and upsets people. They have had ample opportunity to observe that Percy *is* distressed by their actions, that they have a marked and negative effect on his ability to cope, and that they are causing him harm. He protests and he objects; he complains to his parents; he locks himself in his room. He is not capable of retaliating in kind -- indeed, he does not retaliate in any way at all.<< and this: >>And what about Percy? The twins aren't picking on Percy because he has injured them terribly through any particular action he has taken against them. They're picking on him because he is *vulnerable,* and because they have identified some trait that makes him, to their mind, "fair game," thus enabling them to rationalize their behavior. In Percy's case, that trait happens to be pomposity. << No, I don't think it's quite that simple. Like a magician, the narrative distracts us by drawing our attention to a disagreement over style, but there's a grievance with substance underneath it all, one which accounts for the bitter undertones Elkins detects. Let's look at chapter 5 of GoF. Percy has some important work to do, a report about cauldron bottoms for the Ministry. Nobody else can quite see why it's so important, but they accept that it is, and they make concessions to him. Percy gets a room of his own, when everyone else has to double and triple. He gets to insist on silence, when everyone else wants to make noise, even though he can Apparate elsewhere and the youngsters cannot. He gets to exempt himself from all the chores involved in getting dinner on the table for eleven, though even the family's guests are pitching in to help. And then, in the midst of consuming said dinner, he airily announces that he has subjected his family to all this discomfort and inconvenience for the sake of his own personal satisfaction: "I like to keep on top of things," and a vague hope that Mr. Crouch will be pleased: "a bit sooner than he expected it...I think he'll be grateful." If this is a fair sample of Percy's behavior it's not surprising that the Twins are giving him a hard time. I'd say they are acting out not only their own resentment, but the resentment of the entire Weasley family, Molly included, which is perhaps why she chides the Twins but never seems to actually punish them for plaguing Percy. In fact, Percy wants to have his cake and eat it too. He's rejecting many of his family's values, but he's still expecting, and demanding, to be treated as the favorite son. That would create conflict in any family. Since the Weasley's conflict resolution skills are only a notch above Punch and Judy's, consisting of a) snarling rages, and b) the silent treatment, The Twins express their resentment in the only way they know. They can't lose their tempers in Molly/Ron fashion, since they would probably hurt somebody, and frosty silence wouldn't get the message across where Percy's concerned, so they take out their anger in pranks and needling. Displaced anger over Percy could even be behind some of the other Weasley troubles, such as Ron's eruptions of jealousy and Ginny's retreat into the diary's world of madness. Pippin From niemuthervin at worldnet.att.net Thu Aug 29 15:26:40 2002 From: niemuthervin at worldnet.att.net (animagi_raven) Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 15:26:40 -0000 Subject: BAY fodder: Dursleys the cure for Imperius? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43323 Animagi_Raven tumbles out of the fireplace, kicking up ashes and knocking over cauldrons and kettles. He brushes himself off and says "Hummm. Smells like dinner is almost ready. Having cabbage soup? Or is that a polyjuice potion? Weren't you a lot younger the last time was here? And what is with all the cats?" "Well, as long as I am here. Let me apologize for something in my last e-owl post. Bad form, I know, admitting a mental lapse just prior to posting a new hypothesis, but I want to start with a clean slate." "In message #42949 I asked about professors for Muggle Studies (which I intended) and Arithmancy (last minute addition). E-owls came in from everywhere to remind me about Professor Vector. I am still cleaning up all of the owl droppings. My e-owl box looked like the Dursley's front yard for a while there." Animagi_Raven starts banging his head against the wall. "Will not post last-minute additions without checking first." Animagi_Raven finishes off by throwing a Cruciatus curse on himself. "I knew there was a second class and if I had just checked the Lexicon I would have seen that it was Ancient Runes. That was what I intended to e-owl post. Yes, well, that will happen " "What about the potential for addition to one of the grand theories floating in the BAY? Yes, we will get to that. I want to build a case first." "There has been discussions about the Dumbledore keeping Snape around to give the Gryffindors something to be brave about. (In particular Susanna's e-owl posts #33028 and 31723 did indirectly touch on it, just to prove it.) I tend to believe this theory, myself. Now this does not necessarily mean that Snape is acting and is really a nice guy, just that Dumbledore does not reign him in and make him politically-correct because he feels that there is a teaching value in his menacing ways (somehow)." "If that is the case, then flash back to Dumbledore. He has infant Harry in his arms and his mind is working in over-drive. He knows that this baby (if it manages to survive to school-age) will likely someday meet DEs and possibly even the big V. The bad guys tend to have three favorite curses. Harry would stand a better chance if he were somehow resistant to them. Harry has just show a surprising resistance to AK (although maybe only to an AK thrown by the big V. but that is a good start) so that one gets crossed off. Cruciatus would be a little difficult to get around. But what about the one that was causing a lot of trouble at that time? Imperius? That can be thrown off by a strong will. The first time I read that Harry had a strong resistance to Imperius I thought `Well, no wonder, he has had to put up with the Dursleys his whole life.'" "Well, what if that was not an accident? What if Dumbledore put Harry with the Dursleys for that reason - in addition to the more popular `family protection' and 'won't get a big head'. Because he knew that after 11 years of torture Harry would be able to resist an Imperius. Everyone else seems to be shocked at the Dursleys' treatment of Harry but Dumbledore seems to take it in stride. (Do I have to defend this statement with can(n)ons or is everyone willing to go along with it?) My guess is that, if this is the case, now that the secret is out (Harry can resist the Imperius) if Dumbledore has instructed the Dursleys to be mean on purpose (in his letter) or just allowed it to happen, he will make sure that they are nicer to Harry. Could this be the thing that we learn about the Dursleys in Book 5?" "I hear can(n)ons being loaded and wolves howling. I think that I will just drop this dungbomb into the BAY and see if it floats. Maybe someone will even pick it up." Animagi_Raven looks at the fireplace. "I don't think that I will use that mode of travel again. Anybody have any idea how much it costs to take a taxi from here? And I seem to be a little short of cash, do you think I could get the MoM to pay for it?" Animagi_Raven yes the `animagi' plural, it refers to me and my psychoses (it was 2AM when I first signed on, give me a break) From prefectmarcus at yahoo.com Thu Aug 29 17:04:24 2002 From: prefectmarcus at yahoo.com (prefectmarcus) Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 17:04:24 -0000 Subject: BAY fodder: Dursleys the cure for Imperius? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43324 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "animagi_raven" wrote: > > "If that is the case, then flash back to Dumbledore. He has > infant Harry in his arms and his mind is working in over-drive. He > knows that this baby (if it manages to survive to school-age) will > likely someday meet DEs and possibly even the big V. The bad guys > tend to have three favorite curses. Harry would stand a better > chance if he were somehow resistant to them. Harry has just show a > surprising resistance to AK (although maybe only to an AK thrown by > the big V. but that is a good start) so that one gets crossed off. > Cruciatus would be a little difficult to get around. But what about > the one that was causing a lot of trouble at that time? Imperius? > > That can be thrown off by a strong will. The first time I read that > Harry had a strong resistance to Imperius I thought `Well, no > wonder, he has had to put up with the Dursleys his whole life.'" > > "Well, what if that was not an accident? What if Dumbledore put > Harry with the Dursleys for that reason - in addition to the more > popular `family protection' and 'won't get a big head'. > Because he knew that after 11 years of torture Harry would be able to > resist an Imperius. Everyone else seems to be shocked at the > Dursleys' treatment of Harry but Dumbledore seems to take it in > stride. (Do I have to defend this statement with can(n)ons or is > everyone willing to go along with it?) My guess is that, if this is > the case, now that the secret is out (Harry can resist the Imperius) > if Dumbledore has instructed the Dursleys to be mean on purpose (in > his letter) or just allowed it to happen, he will make sure that they > are nicer to Harry. Could this be the thing that we learn about the > Dursleys in Book 5?" > > Animagi_Raven > yes the `animagi' plural, it refers to me and my > psychoses (it was 2AM when I first signed on, give me a break) On first blush, I'd say too many things could go wrong. Harry could react the the Dursleys by becoming broken in spirit, another Neville. Also telling the Dursleys to be mean to him could backfire as well. As to Dumbledore not reacting to the Dursleys' meanness, when does Dumbledore react to anything except mortal danger? Marcus From eloiseherisson at aol.com Thu Aug 29 17:26:20 2002 From: eloiseherisson at aol.com (eloiseherisson at aol.com) Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 13:26:20 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Death Eater's children Message-ID: <49.22cb8230.2a9fb33c@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 43325 Richelle: > Student Nott could be not a son/daughter of the DE Nott, though the name > cropping up in both places sounds a little suspicious. I'm being dense. *Why* can't s/he be? Eloise [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From lucky_kari at yahoo.ca Thu Aug 29 18:25:25 2002 From: lucky_kari at yahoo.ca (lucky_kari) Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 18:25:25 -0000 Subject: TBAY: Re: "Despiadado" Crouch and HumanRightsMartyr!Wilkes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43326 On a table somewhere in Theory Bay, Eileen has set up a quantity of little paper cups filled with a substance that might have an origin as seafood. A banner above reads, "C.R.A.B.C.U.S.T.A.R.D. It's so exciting, it'll make your eyes bulge!" The reactions so far have been either puzzled or vaguely positive. But then, Eileen hears a gagging sound from her right. "Elkins!" "You're still flogging that red herring!" says Elkins. "Have you forgotten so quickly?" "People like it, Elkins. I'm only giving them what they want. People like to think that "Classy, Rich, Ambitious, Bold, Crouch's Unsung Sexiness Tempts All Raunchy Damsels." "I thought "B" stood for beastly," says Elkins calmly, reaching into her wandpocket. Eileen flinches, but Elkins merely waves her wand and cries "Accio canon!" >I will happily help Eileen to man this canon, > in the hopes of blasting that nasty crab-flavored herring out of the >water for once and for all. Elkins announces to Theory Bay. "Well," says Eileen after a second's pause. "I'm game. You see, the original C.R.A.B.C.U.S.T.A.R.D. theory was in reaction to B.A.B.E.M.E.I.S.T.E.R. (Brilliant Actor Barty: Evil Man Easily, Infinitely Sexier Than Ex-Riddle )." "And the problem with that?" asks Elkins. "Well, you know, Crouch Jr. is a sadist and well... really, really evil." "But he had so much fun." "Err.... Could I make confession, Elkins? Don't tell anyone but I really, really love Barty Crouch Jr. I've fought against it a long time, but I can't help it." "We'll talk about that later, if you want," said Elkins with an amused smile. First, let's deal with Wilkes, Wilkes who has finally got his own Exclamation Mark: HumanRightsMartyr!Wilkes." I wrote: > > But, it's always bugged listies, hasn't it, that the aurors didn't > > have the authorization to use "Avada Kedavra" in the first place. Elkins responded: > It's never particularly bugged me. As discussions of Harry and >Sirius in the Shrieking Shack show, there are plenty of other ways to >kill people, and I suspect that the aurors were always authorized to >use them in self-defense, or to protect the innocent. But none of those killing methods people have suggested for Harry and Sirius have struck me as pleasant. Accio Heart! and Drop a rock on Sirius's head etc. I'd take Avada Kedavra any day. It's quick and who knows? it might even be painless. Of course, not having died myself, I wouldn't know.... [Below is Elkins' take on the passage, which I have let stand full, because every part is pretty essential. If you remember it clearly, scroll down.] >But I don't really think that authorizing the Aurors to kill in self-defense >was what Crouch did, and I don't think that Avada Kedavra was really the >Unforgiveable Curse that Sirius was talking about, either. >Here is the full passage (written in English) to which Eileen referred: >"The Aurors were given new powers -- powers to kill rather than capture, for >instance. And I wasn't the only one who was handed straight to the dementors >without trial. Crouch fought violence with violence, and authorized the use of >the Unforgivable Curses against suspects. I would say he became as ruthless >and cruel as many on the Dark Side." > >Okay. Two things here. > > First thing. Sirius does *not* say "The Aurors were given new powers -- powers >to kill, for instance." > >What he does say is: "powers to kill _rather than capture._" [emphasis mine] > >In other words, what Crouch authorized his aurors to do was not to kill in >self-defense. It was not to kill in bloody magical shoot-outs. It was not to >use lethal force when such was necessary to provide immediate protection to the >innocent. And it was not to kill when capture was impossible. > >What Crouch authorized his aurors to do was to kill *rather* than to capture. > >In other words, they were authorized to kill people who could instead have been >apprehended. > >That's serious. The Aurors are not judges, but investigators; their job is not > to convict, but to investigate and to apprehend. As shoddy and as corrupt as >the Wizarding World's justice system may be, it nonetheless does exist. There > are courts, and there are trials, and people are sometimes acquitted of the > charges against them. We are told that a good number of the DEs stood trial >and were acquitted after Voldemort's fall. Presumably at least one or two genuinely >innocent people have managed this as well. > >So what Crouch authorized his aurors to do was to kill *suspects,* people >against whom absolutely nothing had yet been proven in a court of law. He >authorized them to kill on the basis of nothing more than suspicion -- or even >their whim. > >In short, he authorized them to kill anyone they damn well felt like, with >little or no accountability to anyone for their actions. > >Very reassuring. > >The second thing I would like to point out here is that Sirius lists the >aurors' license to kill as a *separate* issue from that of their license to use >the Unforgivables. > >First he mentions that the aurors were granted license to kill rather than to >capture. Then he mentions that many people (other than he himself) were sent >to prison without trial. And *then* he states that Crouch authorized the use >of the Unforgiveables. Finally, he concludes that Crouch had become "as >ruthless and cruel as many on the Dark Side." > >I have never assumed that the AK was the Unforgivable Curse to which Sirius was >alluding here. He'd already covered that base when he cited the license to >kill. No, I have always assumed that the Cruciatus -- and to a lesser extent, >the Imperius -- were the relevant Unforgivables here. > >Eileen: > > I'm beginning to suspect that Crouch authorized the use of the >> unforgiveable curses on people already taken into custody. > >Yes. Or, for that matter, even on people who in the end were *never* taken >into custody. That, at any rate, was my instinctive understanding of what that >passage meant when I first read it. > >Now, I freely admit that my reading of this scene may have been biased by the >fact that not only have I spent some time working for Amnesty International, >but that I also knew full well while reading GoF that its author had as well. >Nonetheless, that was *precisely* how I interpreted Sirius' words in "Padfoot >Returns." Crouch authorized his aurors to use torture and mind-control, and he >authorized them to use these techniques even against people who had never been >convicted (or even necessarily accused) of any crime. > >Hence, "descended to the level of the Death Eaters." >Again, very reassuring. This seems a very sensible reading of a passage that has confused a whole lot of us. But really, I could kick myself for the misreading. The moment Sirius began to talk about Crouch Sr., I went all Alexandr Solzhenitsyn... I really did. And then I misread the passage. ARGGH. >No. I did not like that Crouch Sr. I did not like him at all. Dead Sexy though he is? You know why I really like Crouch Sr.? He has a redemption scene. And I'm a sucker for redemption scenes: successful or failures. Dave Witley wrote back in Message 38368: "However, I would suggest that Crouch Sr's final attempts to reach Dumbledore are a textbook case of redemption. The word originally related to buying freedom from slavery, either for yourself or for another, and then came to be applied religiously. He has seen the error of his ways and strives to make restitution. He struggles against the bondage that his own actions have placed him in, and begins to break free. If this were a Christian allegory (I don't believe it is), the angels would be rejoicing in heaven." It's become a commonplace here on the list that Real Wizards Don't Apologize. And yet, Crouch Sr., who seems to serve as the GoF personification of the Livian toughness espoused by this society, in the end says, "It's my fault... it's all my fault.." And goes to Dumbledore, the moral centre of the books, just as Snape went to Dumbledore years before. I can't help but cry at "The Madness of Mr. Crouch" and feel rather kindly towards him. >And I am *very* suspicious of that "very popular" martyr-auror Frank >Longbottom, too. I've always found it curious that JKR suddenly introduces another auror to the story. Frank Longbottom's importance to the story must be bound up with his position as an auror, and I've proposed a multitude of theories over this, but it also means that he's linked to the generally increasing ambience of the books, of which the aurors could almost stand as symbol. The aurors who brought in many of Lord Voldemort's servants, who killed innocent people, who were searching Europe for Voldemort, who were killing the giants, who were using the Unforgiveable curses, whom Hermione, Harry, and Ron almost come to idolize halfway through GoF. >Sirius is clearly no fan of the aurors, but even he >acknowledges that Moody was all right. Moody was the Good Auror. Didn't kill >if he could avoid it. Never descended to the level of the Death Eaters. So >who *were* those other aurors? Who were those guys who were running around >killing suspects rather than bothering to arrest them, practicing their >Unforgivables on people who had never even stood trial? > >Could their zeal have made them "very popular?" > >It does rather beg the question, doesn't it? "I think so," says Eileen, rolling up her sleeves. "Shall we ask it together?" I had written: > What about Wilkes? Elkins responded: >Yes. What *about* Wilkes? > > It's about time that poor old Wilkes got some speculative attention, don't you >think? I mean, the poor man! (Or woman. After all, the possibility still >*does* exist that Wilkes might have been a girl named Florence who used to snog >Snape behind the greenhouses...) A member of Snape's old gang, killed by >aurors in the year before Voldemort's fall, and yet half the time s/he gets >left *out* when people try to draw up a DE roll call. (Witness message #42806, >for example.) No first name, no backstory, not even a *gender!* > > And Karkaroff didn't even bother to try ratting him-or-her out to the Minstry. > >Yes, Wilkes is the Forgotten Death Eater, to be sure. S/he's even more >neglected than dear old Nott, or than my boy Avery. Eileen gazes over the Bay at Avery, who is reorganizing the Viking Hats display. Avery can no longer plead neglect, can he? But, I think Wilkes is a man. First of all, despite JKR's numbers, Harry has five boys in his dormitory, and I could very well see Snape, Wilkes, Rosier, Lestrange, and Avery fitting into the same pattern. And then we can have fun matching them all and doing cross-generational parallels. Instead of Harry as James, Ron as Sirius, Hermione as Lupin, and Neville as Pettigrew, we could have Harry as Snape, Ron as Lestrange, Hermione as Mrs. Lestrange, Neville as Avery, Seamus as Rosier, and Dean as Wilkes. The benefits of such an analysis should be clear to anyone drinking heavily of Cindy's brandy and those martinis we serve on the Fourth Man hovercraft. Seriously, women in the Potterverse tend to be graced with first names. It's Millicent Bullstrode and Pansy Parkinson, not Bullstrode and Parkinson. The only person who doesn't abide by the rule is Draco Malfoy with his "Granger," so if Wilkes does turn out to be a woman, I guess we could chalk that up under "Sirius Black is a bully." ( JK) >As Eileen knows full well, I have been plugging for "Wilkes dead at Frank >Longbottom's hands" ever since my delurk. In fact, it's almost become canon. Newbies to the list must shake their heads and say, "Where was it that Frank Longbottom killed Wilkes?", that is, if they remember Wilkes at all. As Evan Rosier kindly pointed out to me, I've forgotten about him half the time too. On the other hand, he's virtually assured a reappearance. Sirius idley mentions five names, and within a few chapters, four of them make important appearances. And Wilkes is never mentioned at all. If she doesn't have something planned with Wilkes, why couldn't she have worked in a reference to him in the Pensieve scene, alongside Rosier and all the others? As it stands, it's bizarre. Introduced and then never mentioned again. >It would go a long way towards explaining the particularly excessive (and >strangely impractical) savagery of the Lestranges' treatment of the >Longbottoms. They were after information, yes. But they could also have been >after payback. I instinctively read revenge into the Longbottom affair. It seemed as if the objective was to make Frank and his wife suffer. This could further explain why the Pensieve four leave them alive. You once speculated that what the Longbottoms are going through is reliving again and again their torture. Even if Mrs. Lestrange is in Azkaban, I bet she's pretty satisfied with that. About Neville and Snape: >But it does occur to me that there might be something even more immediate going >on there. Snape responds to Neville with uncharacteristic temper -- and >uncharacteristic crudity, as well -- at his *very first potions class.* His >verbal abuse of Harry >and Hermione is calm, cold, deliberate, quite sophisticated. With Neville, all >that he can manage is a snarl of pure rage. It is a rather striking loss of >control for Snape, I've always thought, and it happens before he has really had >much opportunity to observe Neville's behavior. It's only the first day of >class. He has not in fact yet had much opportunity to learn what a chronic >bungler Neville is, nor how timid, nor how weak. And yet he shows a striking >lack of self-control when it comes to the boy. Yes, it is striking, isn't it? "Idiot boy!" are his first words to Neville. On the other hand, to Harry: "Ah yes, Harry Potter. Our new - _celebrity_." I found it interesting how painful the terms are in which Rowling describes Neville's mishap with the potion. And, of course, Snape seems to enjoy seeing Neville in pain. >It does make you wonder, doesn't it? Sons in the Potterverse do have this >strange tendency to take after their fathers physically. Who is Snape *really* >seeing, every time that he looks at Neville in potions class? While Snape did >eventually turn on his old Hogwarts classmates, there is some evidence to >suggest that he's still not altogether comfortable dealing with the people who >actually *killed* them. He is afraid of Moody. > >Finally, if Eileen is correct in her suspicion that there was something >untoward about Wilkes' death, then that would finally provide us with a >canonical illustration of the excesses of those rotten aurors. I do think that >we may well be handed harder evidence ofthat one of these days. The series >is becoming more morally complex as it progresses, after all. I agree. But here, a problem presents itself. Could Frank Longbottom really have been all that rotten? Dumbledore seems to have liked the man. You noted this yourself many posts back, if I recall correctly. On the other hand, the books seem to be about skeletons in the family closet. So, can we posit a scenario with a likeable by Dumbledore Frank Longbottom AND something he did that was completely wrong? Talk about moral complexity, Eileen, who is highly disappointed that "Who was the sexiest?" internet polls never include Crouch Sr. From bdmorrp at budget.state.ny.us Thu Aug 29 18:30:06 2002 From: bdmorrp at budget.state.ny.us (erisedstraeh2002) Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 18:30:06 -0000 Subject: The Mystery of Hagrid Returning the Motorbike to Sirius Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43327 I received my adult-version UK Harry Potter paperbacks last night, and started reading PS. When I got to the part when Hagrid, after delivering Harry to Dumbledore on Privet Dr., is ready to depart, I was surprised that instead of his saying "I've got to get this bike back to Sirius" (as my US copy reads), he instead says "I've got to get this bike put away." I've long wondered about the inconsistency in Hagrid's saying that he has to get the motorbike back to Sirius in SS with Hagrid saying in PoA (at the Three Broomsticks) that Sirius had given him the bike and told him (Hagrid) that he (Sirius) wouldn't need it anymore. This inconsistency is also noted in the HPfGU FAQs Mysteries section. I checked the page on the Lexicon that shows the differences between the US and UK editions of SS/PS, and this wording change is not noted. So I'm wondering if this was an error that was noticed after PoA and corrected in later printings of PS. Perhaps this wording change is an acknowledgement that this really was an error in the original edition of SS/PS. (btw, I checked my new UK CoS and Voldemort is the last remaining *descendant* of Slytherin.) ~Phyllis From fyredriftwood at yahoo.com Thu Aug 29 17:31:55 2002 From: fyredriftwood at yahoo.com (fyredriftwood) Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 17:31:55 -0000 Subject: Arthur Weasley and the song filks In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43328 CMC, the poster who archives FILKS, wrote: > > Yes, filks are often posted to this site. If you enter the > word "filk" in the "Search Archive" box on the right hand side of the > screen, you can review what others have recently posted. > > Most of the filks on my website were first posted to HP4GU. > > - CMC Thank you so much... expect a song filk to Something Corporate's "If You See Jordan" and to Oasis' "Wonderwall" up here soon. =) On the subject of Arthur Weasley, I have a question to ask: Why does he obsess over the plugs and batteries, and other little trinkets of the Muggle culture? Is it because he wasn't ever exposed to it before in his life, or because he's a wizard and Muggle's always have facinated him? Or, is it because they're small and people like to collect small things? Arthur Weasley has always seemed a bit.... hmm, how to put this politically correct.. okay, fine... he's odd... sort of like how Dumbledore is. They're both a bit excentric, but maybe that will be important. Who knows?! --Fyre Wood, who is now going to English 103... gosh I hate college. From mi_shell16 at hotmail.com Thu Aug 29 17:34:00 2002 From: mi_shell16 at hotmail.com (theresnothingtoit) Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 17:34:00 -0000 Subject: Fighting the unforgivables Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43329 Hello, Just a short post. We all know that AK cannot be blocked by any normal wizard and Imperius can be fought but it takes strength of mind. But what about the Cruciatus curse? Can it be blocked or can it just be toned down a little by the victem? Theresnothingtoit (Who cannot think of any smart remark to put at the end of her post) From siriuskase at earthlink.net Thu Aug 29 20:05:58 2002 From: siriuskase at earthlink.net (Sirius Kase) Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 16:05:58 -0400 Subject: Harry's Good Will? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43330 Thanks bboy_mn for helping me out. Sometimes I don't express myself as clearly as I'd like. But one thing I want to make perfectly clear is that I like Harry - a whole lot. He never misbehaves without some sort of justification, he isn't power hungry and although he sometimes laughs at the misfortunes of others, he isn't the instigator of any of that. I don't find anything terribly out of the ordinary about his flaws (and he'd be no good as a character if he had none) and given his background, I'm surprised that he is as good of a kid as he is. My post wasn't about my opinion. As bboy_mn clarifies, I'm describing a different point of view and that would be the opinion of a wizard who doesn't know Harry personally but forms an opinion based on history, the media and the grapevine. Everyone *knows* that Harry is a powerful wizard who did something good when young. Everyone knows he's a Quidditch hero. But they also know that he gets into weird situations with rather incredible explanations. Because of his history with Voldemort, he begins life in the Wizard World with a huge supply of good will. The typical wizard on the street wants to believe him when they hear about his continuing struggle with the Dark Side. Especially since his continuing story is told by the respected headmaster Dumbledore, hero of the 40's War. Besides, he's to young to be evil. But, there is no hard evidence that Harry is telling the truth. So it shouldn't be surprising that not all wizards think well of Harry. Power corrupts, ya know. My contention is the group of wizards who have reservations about his character may be growing. Some will believe him and Dumbledore, some will think badly of him, and a large group will just not know whom to trust. It doesn't help that Dumbledore's heroic reputation was earned over fifty years ago, and that he has a weird sense of humor and comes across as "barking mad" (i.e. crazy) Harry's enemies are doing a great job of getting out the unfavorable interpretation of the observable evidence. Remember, Rita and the Malfoys have not been publicly discredited. *We* know that they are baddies, but they are influential. Harry doesn't toot his own horn. He lets his friends do the talking. But, his friends respect Harry's privacy and don't say much to help his public image. They mean well, but by not talking, they aren't giving Harry a positive character reference to counter the negative. Reread what I said with all that in mind. I hope it will make more sense now. Sirius Kase Originally said: > Because of Harry's history, the wizarding public is also inclined > to like him and accept Dumbledore's explanations. But as the > story wears on, I think that Harry is using up his store of Good > Will and will eventually use up much of Dumbledore's political > capital as well. I mean, how far can you go based on something > you did as baby, being a sports hero, and the incredible > explanations of a senile old guy who has lost whatever ability he > ever had to hire good teachers and run a safe school? If > Dumbledore's pet continues to leave dead and unconscious bodies > in his wake, that must be troubling even if one is inclined to > like Harry.> > jenny_ravenclaw Replied: > I had trouble following your point in this post, but this part truly > has me confused. What are you implying about Harry here? Are you > saying that he is a jerk who expects others to take up for him and > spend time on his cause? Where did you find evidence in canon that > makes you believe Dumbledore is senile? Do you think Harry is a > murderer? > > Harry is a good kid. He doesn't like getting attention and what > he wants more than anything is to blend in. .... > Yep, he's a good kid, but there is no hard evidence that he isn't a murderer nor is there evidence that he is. In times of crisis, some societies will take the more conservative position that Harry's innocence should be proven rather than his guilt. Remember how Hagrid and Sirius were jailed with no proof? bboy_mn's explanation regarding the general public having incomplete information is better than mine, so I'll go with it. bboy_mn Adds: I> won't attempt to speak for the author, but I will give my take on > what was said. > > First, as a reader you have direct knowledge of Harry. We as the > reader even know more about Harry than his best friends; there are > things he has told us, that he hasn't told them. So we view from a > privilaged position. To understand Sirius Kase, you need to place > yourself in the position of the average wizard who has only the > legend, the media, and rumors to go on, but no direct knowledge of > Harry's personality or day to day existance. From that perspective, > from that base of limited information, I think Sirius Kase statements > should be clearer. > > I mean, even Fudge who does have some direct knowledge of Harry, and > has some small sense of his personality, still puts a great deal of > stock in what he reads in the papers. > > So people on the outside with limited and frequently distorted > knowledge are going to be less forgiving that people who know Harry > personally. > > The same goes for Dumbledore, while the average wizard certainly knows > who he is and probably respects him, they have very little knowledge > to base that on. They don't know him personally, and the don't have > direct knowledge of his beliefs or of his ability to run Hogwarts. So, > their judgments can easily be swayed by limited, inaccurate, and > distorted information. > > Those outside of the immediate circle are not going to be as forgiving > or understanding as those on the inside of the circle. > > Just some thoughts. > bboy_mn And for all these reasons, I think that public opinion is shifting away from Harry's favor, Dumbledore's reputation is being damaged, and our heros and the rest of the Wizarding World are in big trouble. Sirius Kase From lupinesque at yahoo.com Thu Aug 29 20:20:27 2002 From: lupinesque at yahoo.com (lupinesque) Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 20:20:27 -0000 Subject: Death Eater's children In-Reply-To: <49.22cb8230.2a9fb33c@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43331 Richelle wrote: > > Student Nott could be not a son/daughter of the DE Nott, though the name > > cropping up in both places sounds a little suspicious. Eloise wrote: > I'm being dense. *Why* can't s/he be? Not being dense at all, just misreading "be not" as "not be." I think Richelle was saying "it's possible that student Nott isn't a son/daughter..." not "it's not possible that student Nott is a son/daughter..." Which is true. He/she could be a niece or nephew, or grandchild, or younger brother or sister, or of course (though this seems unlikely) no relation at all. Amy Z ------------------------------------------------------- Dudley thought for a moment. It looked like hard work. -HP and the Philosopher's Stone ------------------------------------------------------- From eloiseherisson at aol.com Thu Aug 29 20:33:01 2002 From: eloiseherisson at aol.com (eloiseherisson at aol.com) Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 16:33:01 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Death Eater's children Message-ID: <23.235b2112.2a9fdefd@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 43332 Amy: > Not being dense at all, just misreading "be not" as "not be." I > think Richelle was saying "it's possible that student Nott isn't a > son/daughter..." not "it's not possible that student Nott is a > son/daughter..." > > Which is true. He/she could be a niece or nephew, or grandchild, or > younger brother or sister, or of course (though this seems unlikely) > no relation at all. Um...I think it's dense! I read that so many times trying to think what Richelle meant! Thanks, Eloise > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From jferer at yahoo.com Thu Aug 29 21:04:09 2002 From: jferer at yahoo.com (jferer) Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 21:04:09 -0000 Subject: Numbers (Re: The Scale of Things) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43333 Christian:"While we know nothing of how long a witch will remain able to bear children, I do get the impression that most families have few children, the Weasleys being an exception." Most Western European families have fewer children as well. Family sizes are declining in the US, Canada, and at least Western Europe. I believe we have to assume wizarding family sizes are not significantly different than Muggle ones. Christian:"As far as we know, muggle-parentage is somewhat rare, so I think assuming (though it does create an inaccuracy) that squibs outweigh muggleborns in calculating the statistics, we can somewhat account for this. The result will not be perfect, but I do think it will be close enough." I don't agree here. Ron tells us very early on that the wizarding world would have died out 'if we hadn't married Muggles." Seamus is half-Muggle. So is Lord Voldemort, and both Hermione's parents are Muggle; so it doesn't seem rare at all. Having said that, we don't know more. OTOH, we have heard that squibs are unusual, if not rare. Christian, quoting Professor Dumbledore:""The Triwizard Tournament was first established some seven hundred years ago, as a friendly competition between the three largest European schools of wizardry - Hogwarts, Beauxbatons, and Drumstrang." Christian:"While this evidence is not rock-hard (i.e., it might only mean that back then there were other schools, of lesser standing than the three great, with these lesser schools having now disappeared), it does make it plausible and probable that there are more than three wizarding-schools in Europe." Excellent point, thanks. it may well be, then, that there are more wizarding schools in Europe. That's more likely, I believe, than Beauxbatons or Durmstrang being much larger schools than Hogwarts. I have no evidence of that, except that the 'three greatest wizarding schools in Europe' suggest an equivalency in most things. Otherwise it would be like Fairfield University in Connecticut (4,000 students) fielding their best athletes against UCLA's (30,000 students) best athletes. Regards, Jim Ferer From jferer at yahoo.com Thu Aug 29 21:41:02 2002 From: jferer at yahoo.com (jferer) Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 21:41:02 -0000 Subject: The Scale of Things In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43334 Grey Wolf, describing Catlady's Multiple Campus Theory:"So, I think it's time to bring back a theory of a fellow listee that adresses this problem quite satisfactorily: Catlady_de_los_Angeles is the author of the theory, which I normally call "Multiple Campus Hogwarts As you've probably guessed, the theory says that Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry is divided on a number of campuses and hidden in diverse places all over Britatin. This division makes sense, since a big concentration of magic and wizards at one point always causes trouble, and is easier to hide (say) four small schools than one big one. At this point, people against the theory point out that the place Harry goes to is designated as *the* Hogawarts, but this is no big deal: in my experience, the main campus is always refered to with the name of the whole school, while the other campuses receive lesser names." The problem with this theory is there is no, absolutely no, evidence for it whatsoever - quite the contrary. I don't think it's credible that we would have heard nothing of these campuses before. JKR has stated that Hogwarts is the only wizarding school in Britain; to stretch that into allowing multiple campuses is just like saying that the University of California [system] is one school. On the one hand, we're saying here that JKR's own pronouncement that there are 1,000 students at Hogwarts "contradicts canon," largely because JKR hasn't mentioned other students in Harry's year. We're taking that as proof more students can't possibly exist, but we're willing to believe in entire campuses that JKR hasn't seen fit to mention or suggest. Several of us have, using different approaches, extrapolated the 1,000 student figure into a possible 20,000 wizard population for Britian. That's enough, but barely, to support a kind of wizard society. That we each got to approximately the same place in different ways makes the 20,000 figure more credible. JKR is the creator and ruling deity of the Harry Potter Universe. If she says there's 1,000 students, then there's 1,000 students. I think that creates a lot of problems for imagining a viable wizarding society, but there it is. We have to stretch that 20,000 population, if that's how many wizards there are, to a large bureaucracy (MOM), industry (Everything from Bertie Bott's to Firebolts), arts, literature, entertainment, academia and sports. Everybody must have two jobs or something. What I know is that I can't explain it all, since I'm not willing to totally make stuff up. We have to work with what we can find in or reasonablly extrapolate from canon. From pengolodh_sc at yahoo.no Thu Aug 29 21:49:11 2002 From: pengolodh_sc at yahoo.no (pengolodh_sc) Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 21:49:11 -0000 Subject: Relative school-sizes (was Numbers (Re: The Scale of Things)) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43335 --- In HPforGrownups, "jferer" wrote: > Christian:"While this evidence is not rock-hard (i.e., it might > only mean that back then there were other schools, of lesser > standing than the three great, with these lesser schools having > now disappeared), it does make it plausible and probable that > there are more than three wizarding-schools in Europe." > > Excellent point, thanks. it may well be, then, that there are > more wizarding schools in Europe. That's more likely, I > believe, than Beauxbatons or Durmstrang being much larger > schools than Hogwarts. I have no evidence of that, except > that the 'three greatest wizarding schools in Europe' suggest > an equivalency in most things. Otherwise it would be like > Fairfield University in Connecticut (4,000 students) fielding > their best athletes against UCLA's (30,000 students) best > athletes. Well, the thing is that what we know about Durmstrang does point towards it potentially being much larger than Hogwarts, if one assumes even distribution of wizards per European population. The name Durmstrang does points towards a German language of instruction, but all we have seen (not much, admittedly) of students and staff point towards a recruitment among Slavic peoples in Europe. Someone expressed a long time ago on this list the opinion that the names we see are atypical for Russia, so one might presume that Durmstrang does not recruit in Russia - I do not recall in what part of Europe it was said that names like Karkaroff and Poliarkoff were typical, though. Still, the Slavic-speaking population in Europe outside Russia is close to three times that of English-speakers, and the population of German-speakers is almost 40% greater than that of English-speakers, so Durmstrang's area of recruitment potentially holds a wizarding-population 4 times that of Hogwarts. Beauxbatons, in comparison, does not get too much larger than Hogwarts, even if you factor in Francophone Canada and Louisiana. It is of course not a given that all non-Russian Slavic-speaking wizards-and-witches-to-be go to Durmstrang - it depends on when and why Durmstrang was founded. One could theorise, for instance, that Durmstrang perhaps was founded in response to the Ottoman victories against the Byzantine Empire - as the Bysantine Empire lost more and more European territory (such as present-day Greece, Rumania, Bulgaria, etc.), wizards in those countries still not occupied might set up a school in exile, for children in the areas conquered by the Ottomans. Durmstrang would in that scenario only take students from the countries nearest Turkey, such as Bulgaria and Rumania, while students in countries like Poland, Hungary, Czecy, Slovakia would be taken care of partly by schools descending from the times of the Austrian and German empires, partly by new national schools set up following the collapse of those empires. Best regards Christian Stub? From grrlscout678 at yahoo.com Thu Aug 29 20:57:54 2002 From: grrlscout678 at yahoo.com (grrlscout678) Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 20:57:54 -0000 Subject: Ireland Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43336 Apologies if this has been debated here before -- I've never seen anyone talk about it here or elsewhere, but then I'm hardly omniscient. It started bothering me when I was recently rereading GoF, and I wondered what others thought about it. So the two teams playing in the World Cup final are Ireland and Bulgaria. The Bulgarian Minister for Magic is in the top box with Fudge. There's no mention of the Irish Minister. Seamus, and presumably other Irish students, attend Hogwarts, in Britain. Ireland, England, Scotland, and Wales all have their own national Quidditch teams. Yet students from at least three of these places (are there Welsh students? I haven't noticed any) attend Hogwarts and speak of "the Ministry," all referring, presumably, to the British Ministry of Magic as led by Cornelius Fudge. In the magical world, is all of Ireland still under British rule, along with Scotland and Wales? Did they just not bother to become independent when Muggle Ireland did? Unless I've gotten my history wrong... Anna Maria From crussell at arkansas.net Thu Aug 29 20:44:38 2002 From: crussell at arkansas.net (bugaloo37) Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 20:44:38 -0000 Subject: Harry's Good Will? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43337 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Sirius Kase" wrote: > ... I think that public opinion is shifting away from > Harry's favor, > Dumbledore's reputation is being damaged, and our heros and the rest of > the Wizarding World are in big trouble. > > I completely agree with you on this point. IMO, the fact that battle lines are being drawn was made obvious by Fudge's reaction at the end of GoF when Harry revealed the names of those who are still maintaining their loyalty to Voldemort as DEs-but also maintaining their positions of authority in the MoM. A line was drawn in the sand at this point by Dumbledore. In the final 3 books, decisions will have to be made which side to choose. The shifting of public opinion will definitely play a part in this-Cedric's death is probably going to have a longer lasting effect than we realize. There are those whose loyalties should not be questioned- but there are those who remain ambiguious-such as Percy -whose family is a staunch Dumbledore supporter- but he also has a loyalty to Fudge. It will be interesting to see which way that particular ball bounces. JKR has warned us of the increasing darkness of the remaining books. The deteriation of Harry reputation plays right into this increase in darkness. bugaloo37 From jferer at yahoo.com Thu Aug 29 22:12:29 2002 From: jferer at yahoo.com (jferer) Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 22:12:29 -0000 Subject: Ireland In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43338 Anna Maria:"So the two teams playing in the World Cup final are Ireland and Bulgaria. The Bulgarian Minister for Magic is in the top box with Fudge. There's no mention of the Irish Minister. Seamus, and presumably other Irish students, attend Hogwarts, in Britain. Ireland, England, Scotland, and Wales all have their own national Quidditch teams. Yet students from at least three of these places..." Excellent point, and there's no explanation I know of. Did the Irish wizards have more in common with their fellow wizards in other parts of the Isles than with their strife-torn Muggle neighbors? The idea is attractive, anyway. We didn't meet the Irish Minister of Magic, but that's not absolute proof he wasn't there. Doesn't look like it, though. Anna Maria:"...(are there Welsh students? I haven't noticed any)" Are you kidding? No Welsh wizards? No wizards from the land of Merlin? it would be a better question if there were any Muggles there. All kidding aside, there's a school of thought that Godric's Hollow may be in Wales, based on Hagrid describing baby Harry falling to sleep "over Bristol" on the way to Surrey. I've never pulled out a map to check it myself. And many think Godric Gryffindor was Welsh. From prefectmarcus at yahoo.com Thu Aug 29 23:31:52 2002 From: prefectmarcus at yahoo.com (prefectmarcus) Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 23:31:52 -0000 Subject: What Makes a Viable Population Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43339 I am somewhat amused by assertions that 20,000 people do not make a viable population. I spent my teenage years in a town of 7000. We had a big factory, a great many smaller ones, ten blocks of a thriving downtown, and a thriving shopping mall. My first 14 years were spent in a town of 1,400. There was a thriving downtown of four to six blocks. There were several hotels, resturants, banks, and fast food joints. It even had one-way streets! The main industry was farming and ranching. There wasn't any tourist trade to speak of. It was the county seat, so it did have that. So if you figure that a small Hogwarts student body of about 250 extrapulates into a larger wizard population of 6500, trust me, it IS viable. It is very viable. Don't let your big city experience cloud your judgement. Philadelphia at the time of the revolution was the largest city in the American colonies, and it had a population of only 25,000. (http://mcmcweb.er.usgs.gov/phil/philpopdata.html) I think one quote in this discussion is very telling. Ron stated in CoS that unless the wizards had intermarried with the muggles, the wizards would have died out. Now how true that is, I do not know. JKR likes to have her characters state things as truth which are only opinions or even distortions of the truth. But it is appropo to this thread, I'm sure you will agree. Marcus From dicentra at xmission.com Fri Aug 30 00:31:02 2002 From: dicentra at xmission.com (dicentra63) Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 00:31:02 -0000 Subject: Dirty!Harry and Stoned!Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43340 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "ssk7882" wrote: > > Here we touch on TBAY's Stoned!Harry: Harry as the living embodiment > of the Philosopher's Stone, as an agent of spiritual renewal and > transcendence. By intervening in the Shrieking Shack, Harry is not > really saving Pettigrew at all. ... He is saving *Sirius* (and al so Remus), just as > James once saved Sirius and Remus by intervening in the prank, and > just as Harry and James will soon symbolically unite to save Sirius > from the dementors. By intervening to insist upon the recognition of > a higher moral code than "he deserves it," Harry is acting as an > agent of transformative and redemptive moral change, one which can > serve to heal both the wounds of injustice and the wounds of the > past. As true as all this is, it seems so incongruous that Harry was on the verge of killing Sirius only an hour or so earlier. Harry's rage at Sirius had been simmering ever since he overheard that conversation in The Three Broomsticks. He even asserted to Lupin that Sirius "deserved" the dementor's kiss. His impulse to kill Sirius was pure hatred and vengeance, not at all different from Sirius's desire to kill Pettigrew. So what changed? What persuaded Harry within that short time to recognize this higher moral code? It's understandable that he'd decide to save his father's friends, based on what he believes his father would have done, but why didn't his rage turn to Pettigrew? Why don't we see Harry himself killing him, or at least pointing a wand at him and trying to get up the nerve to do it? I'll have to read Shrieking Shack again for clues, but I really don't remember Harry having any epiphany apart from realizing that Sirius is innocent. --Dicentra From iamevilhomer323 at yahoo.com Fri Aug 30 00:46:03 2002 From: iamevilhomer323 at yahoo.com (Evil Homer) Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 17:46:03 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Blank pages in history Message-ID: <20020830004603.80015.qmail@web12903.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 43341 --- malady579 wrote: > Another pondering (too much free time): > > Given the high profile of the Potter's death and > thus Voldemort's > disembodiment, wouldn't it seem highly probable that > most of the > wizard community knows why Voldemort went after the > Potters in the > first place? In response to Malady579's post: It's in my opinion that the wizarding community is *not* aware of why Voldemort was after the Potters. This is for a number of reasons: It is stated by Dumbledore in PoA that the Potters were on the run from Voldemort for a full year before he caught up with them. If memory serves me correctly, he also states that people aren't widely aware of that fact(if I am mistaken, I apologize - I don't have my book with me to check). That right there would prove that Vodemorts pursuit of the Potters - and most likely his motive - are not widely known. Also: everyone seemed completely surprised by Harry's defeat of Voldemort. From the way they were rejoicing at the begining of PS/SS, shooting stores, sending owl after owl, it doesn't seem like they were expecting this. This rejoicing is to such a degree, in fact, it would seem the wizarding community feared there was no hope of overcoming Voldemort. Isn't that why Harry's famous - no Wizard who stood up to Voldemort lived, until Harry? I do feel that *this* contributes to the Potters death being so publicized - it was because no one saw it coming. > So I am wondering, how many in Wizard World really > know why. Why > hasn't Harry heard by now from someone or read it > somewhere? Maybe > that is why Dumbledore also wanted to wisk Harry > away. To prevent him > from knowing so much too soon. I do feel Dumbledore and the Potters, and the Potter's closest friends(and possibly some higher-ups at the ministry of magic) most likely knew of why Voldemort was after them. As Dumbledore said, they had basically been on the run since Harry had been born, and I can hardly believe this is coincidence, seeing as it is Harry who ultimately brougt down Voldemort - obviously they had some inside information. But I don't feel anyone else knew. At the end of PS/SS, when Harry asks Dumbledore why Voldemort wanted to kill him in the first place, Dumbledore assures Harry that when he is ready, he will know. Dumbledore says this so matter-of-factly, it seems he is extremely confident in the fact that in no way will Harry learn why *before* he is ready. If the whole wizarding community knew, how could Dumbledore be so confident that Harry wouldn't find out in the meantime? And if Ron or Hermoine had *any* inkling, I find it hard to believe they wouldn't tell Harry. > Ron must not know either since he has not told Harry > why. Most adults > hold thier tongue around Harry as evident with the > Black affair, but > Malfoy did strut around because he had the > priviledge of knowing > something The Three did not. Does Lucius Malfoy > know? How many of > the deadeaters knew? Pettigrew knew Voldemort > wanted to go after the > Potters since he knew Voldemort wanted the > information. I think it's safe to say that those on the "inside" knew/know the reason - Dumbledore, the Potters, the Marauders, perhaps the Minister of Magic; and on the other side, Voldemort and his inner circle of death eaters(hence Malfoy being privy to inside info) - but no one outside those circles E.H. ===== "I think it is clear that we can expect great things from you" "Bless them, they'll go to any lengths to ignore magic, even if it's staring them in the face..." "Exactly," said Dumbledore, beaming once more. "Which makes you very different from Tom Riddle. It is our choices, Harry, that show us what we really are, far more than our abilities." "He couldn't know that at this very moment, people meeting in secret all over the country were holding up their glasses and saying in hushed voices: "To Harry Potter- the boy who lived!" __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes http://finance.yahoo.com From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Fri Aug 30 01:03:42 2002 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (bboy_mn) Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 01:03:42 -0000 Subject: The Mystery of Hagrid Returning the Motorbike to Sirius In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43342 ~Phyllis Said: --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "erisedstraeh2002" wrote: > I received my adult-version UK Harry Potter paperbacks last night, > and started reading PS. When I got to the part when Hagrid, after > delivering Harry to Dumbledore on Privet Dr., is ready to depart, I > was surprised that instead of his saying "I've got to get this bike > back to Sirius" (as my US copy reads), he instead says "I've got to > get this bike put away." > > I've long wondered about the inconsistency in Hagrid's saying that he > has to get the motorbike back to Sirius in SS with Hagrid saying in > PoA (at the Three Broomsticks) that Sirius had given him the bike and > told him (Hagrid) that he (Sirius) wouldn't need it anymore. This > inconsistency is also noted in the HPfGU FAQs Mysteries section. > > I checked the page on the Lexicon that shows the differences between > the US and UK editions of SS/PS, and this wording change is not > noted. So I'm wondering if this was an error that was noticed after > PoA and corrected in later printings of PS. > > Perhaps this wording change is an acknowledgement that this really > was an error in the original edition of SS/PS. > > (btw, I checked my new UK CoS and Voldemort is the last remaining > *descendant* of Slytherin.) > > ~Phyllis First, let me say "....AAAAAAAAHHHHHH!!!!!!! I hate it when they do that! Here is my guess- "I've got to get this bike put away." ...Sirius had given him the bike and told him (Hagrid) that he (Sirius) wouldn't need it anymore... Doesn't seem that inconsistent to me; that makes sense. Hagrid saying he needs to put it away, could imply that he didn't take Sirius offer to keep the bike compelely serious, so for now, he's going to store it and forget about it. Or it could imply, that since Hagrid isn't a fully qualified wizard, he needs to get it put away and get back to his normal not quite wizard life. It was a special wizarding allowance by Dumbledore and now that it's over, he need to put the bike away. At any rate, while the details are not crystal clear, the possible projected logical sequences of events seem reasonable consistent. (By the way, where is that motorbike now?) Saying "I've got to get this bike back to Sirius" Certainly doesn't seem consistent with what Hagrid said later. OK, now, finally for the actual guess. I think some copy editor (or whatever they are called) hadn't read PoA when he made the change, and Yes, I definitely think it was a change by the American publisher, done independant of J.K.Rowling. In the limited context he had, it probably seemed like a reasonable clarification of the text. BUT HE SCREWED IT UP. (pardon my French) That's why I very seriously hope they stop or extremely minimize the English to English translations of the book. By the way, you might want to email that difference to the HP Lexicon. I'm sure they will appreciate it. They are frequently seen in this forum, so they may pick it up anyway. Just some thoughts. bboy_mn From rvotaw at i-55.com Fri Aug 30 01:37:35 2002 From: rvotaw at i-55.com (Richelle Votaw) Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 20:37:35 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Blank pages in history/ Maurauder's Map/ Death Eater's children/ Fighting unforgivables References: Message-ID: <006c01c24fc5$d1ab20c0$d49fcdd1@istu757> No: HPFGUIDX 43343 Melody writes: > Given the high profile of the Potter's death and thus Voldemort's > disembodiment, wouldn't it seem highly probable that most of the > wizard community knows why Voldemort went after the Potters in the > first place? Yet, know one in school talks about it, though it is not > a normal topic for dinner conversation really. Is it a secret in the > wizard world? James seems to be from an ancient wizard family (given > the invisibility cloak and money, I believe), so the WW knows thier > history. I think it's safe to say that the vast majority of the WW does *not* know why Voldemort was after the Potters. I'd say they assume they were aurors or otherwise fighting against Voldemort. I believe their death was only high profile because the temporary defeat of Voldemort happened at the same time, bringing about "the boy who lived." My main canon being that the very first question Harry asked Dumbledore in the hospital in SS/PS was "Why would Voldemort want to kill me in the first place?" to which Dumbledore replies "Alas, the first thing you ask me, I cannot tell you. Not today. Not now. You will know, one day . . .put it from your mind for now, Harry. When you are older . . . I know you hate to hear this . . . when you are ready, you will know." This tells me that if Dumbledore had thought Harry could find out in a book someplace, he'd have told him personally. But he can't, so he didn't. And, naturally, whatever reason Voldemort had for killing Harry is directly related to Harry's parents. Seeing as Voldemort killed at least one of Harry's parents only to get to Harry. Elkins writes: > So the implication to my mind is that insulting Snape *is* in some > sense a part of the Map's function. Which is highly likely, as I'm sure it was rigged in case Snape ever found it in his snoopings. Richelle wrote: >>> Student Nott could be not a son/daughter of the DE Nott, though >>>the name cropping up in both places sounds a little suspicious. Eloise replied: >> I'm being dense. *Why* can't s/he be? Amy answered: > Not being dense at all, just misreading "be not" as "not be." I > think Richelle was saying "it's possible that student Nott isn't a > son/daughter..." not "it's not possible that student Nott is a > son/daughter..." Thank you Amy, for clearing up my bumbling grammar! That happens when my brain moves faster than my fingers. :) I did mean to say that the Nott being sorted is most likely a relative of the DE Nott, but does'nt have to be an offspring. Could be niece/nephew/ cousin. Hope that's a bit more understandable than the last! There'snothingtoit writes: > Just a short post. We all know that AK cannot be blocked by any > normal wizard and Imperius can be fought but it takes strength of > mind. But what about the Cruciatus curse? Can it be blocked or can > it just be toned down a little by the victem? I've been pondering that myself. I almost think that JKR intentionally had Harry Crucioed by Voldemort two separate times in the graveyard. Once while tied to the gravestone (which was completely cruel, he was totally defenseless) and once while "dueling." He was obviously unable to fight it then. But perhaps now that he's had a "taste" of it? Don't really know the answer, of course! As far as the Imperius curse, who else has been able to fight it? The real Moody has been under it for ten months. He hasn't broken it yet. Crouch Jr took how long? Can't remember right off. But then there's Harry Potter. Who fights it instinctively without even realizing what he's doing. And is completely able to throw it off after what, four tries? And then is able to resist what I'm sure is a more powerful Imperius Curse from Voldemort. Yep, there's definitely something about Harry. Okay, I'm trying to combine replies here, but this is getting a little long. I think I'll go start a new one. Richelle From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Fri Aug 30 01:52:05 2002 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (bboy_mn) Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 01:52:05 -0000 Subject: Dirty!Harry and Stoned!Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43344 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "dicentra63" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "ssk7882" wrote: > > > > Here we touch on TBAY's Stoned!Harry: Harry as the living > > embodiment of the Philosopher's Stone, as an agent of spiritual > > renewal and transcendence. By intervening in the Shrieking > > Shack, Harry is not really saving Pettigrew at all. ... He is > > saving *Sirius* (and al so Remus), just as James once saved > > Sirius and Remus by intervening in the prank, and just as Harry > > and James will soon symbolically unite to save Sirius from the > > dementors. By intervening to insist upon the recognition of > > a higher moral code than "he deserves it," Harry is acting as an > > agent of transformative and redemptive moral change, one which can > > serve to heal both the wounds of injustice and the wounds of the > > past. > > As true as all this is, it seems so incongruous that Harry was on > the verge of killing Sirius only an hour or so earlier. Harry's > rage at Sirius had been simmering ever since he overheard that > conversation in The Three Broomsticks. He even asserted to Lupin > that Sirius "deserved" the dementor's kiss. His impulse to kill > Sirius was pure hatred and vengeance, not at all different from > Sirius's desire to kill Pettigrew. > > So what changed? What persuaded Harry within that short time to > recognize this higher moral code? It's understandable that he'd > decide to save his father's friends, based on what he believes his > father would have done, but why didn't his rage turn to Pettigrew? > Why don't we see Harry himself killing him, or at least pointing a > wand at him and trying to get up the nerve to do it? I'll have to > read Shrieking Shack again for clues, but I really don't remember > Harry having any epiphany apart from realizing that Sirius is > innocent. > > --Dicentra I'm pretty sure you answered your own question. Harry had a long time in which his hatred and anger toward Sirius could build. Then he is confronted by a 'heat of the battle' situation. Harry and friends are being held at wand point by Sirius, Sirius has just attack and broken the leg of his best friend (Ron), he appears to have already made two attempts on Harry's life, and I'm sure Harry assumes that he and his friends are in mortal peril; I would say emtions (fear, anger, hate) are running high in the moment before Harry physically attacks Sirus. On the other hand, the sotry about Wormtail came about in a long somewhat convoluted conversation. So there wasn't the 'heat of the battle' emotions, he didn't have month for the anger to fester, and in saving Sirius, he has already chosen the higher moral ground. Harry is not completely forgiving and has not lost a desire for revenge but his revenge is to let Wormtail go to Azkaban and live amoung the Dementors because 'he deserves it'. Just some thoughts. bboy_mn From nithya_rachel at hotmail.com Fri Aug 30 01:58:41 2002 From: nithya_rachel at hotmail.com (errolowl) Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 01:58:41 -0000 Subject: TBAY The Missing 24 hours: the untold story In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43345 Returning from a long and tiring international flight, Errol spies land across the empty expanse of the ocean. Ah! Now to revisit old friends! but! .but wait a minute! Is this the same cozy home bay? It seems so much more cluttered now and the worthy vessels seem to be banging into each other in an effort to maneuver to optimal firing position .ummm, Errol makes a mental note to request an engorgio charm for the area. Wondering where to land first, Errol is attracted by the commotion right in the middle of the Bay ? Goodness! It looks like the big, bold Captain Cindy is getting the worst of an argument! Errol swoops down to investigate this startling situation, hopping from ship to ship to hear all sides of the argument. He arrives right in the middle of a sentence: Cindy: >>>"See, if Hagrid gave Harry to Mrs. Weasley, where's the Bang there? What? She has Harry share a crib with Ron? They fight over Ron's hand-me-down teething toys? She takes good care of Harry and then ?- what? She doesn't do anything in 10 years to follow up? Wouldn't she want to see if the boy is OK, perhaps? << To which Grey Wolf growls: >> Molly probably wanted to know how was Harry coming along, but Dumbledore kept the information secret for danger of a leak-out. Protecting Harry is difficult enough without having his situation become general knowledge, thank you very much."<< Errol scratches his wise old head But Grey Wolf! The Weasleys already knew that Harry stayed with muggles ? that's one of the firstthings Ron asks Harry about and how difficult would it have been for Authur to figure out where Harry went? After all, other wizarding folk *did* find Harry! Besides, Molly's mothering instincts are so strong,that she possibly couldn't have refrained from checking on Harry oncethey had bonded under such *tragic* circumstances don't you think?Promise to Dumbledore or no! Now it's Meg's turn: >> You see, Cindy, the first time Molly has Harry back in her kitchen she reassumesthe mothering role. It's right here in CoS (US Hardback): "They were starving him, Mum!" said George. "And you!" said Mrs. Weasley, but it was with a slightly softened expression that she started cutting Harry bread and buttering it for him. You see, she immediately assumes a very mothering attitude toward Harry << But Meg, that's merely the first time she has him in her kitchen, and at that point she's mothering *everyone*- it's natural for her. To be really valid, her reaction to meeting Harry for the first time on platform 9 3/4 ought to have been much, much more eloquent. When Fred and George inform her that they just met Harry Potter, she responds with "really George? How do you know?" and "poor dear! That's why he was all alone. I wondered" "he was ever so polite when he asked me how to get on the platform" ..all very acceptable statementsabout a kid everyone has idolized and felt sorry for ? and nothing there at all to show a more serious attachment. Molly does seem a poor candidate Cindy: "Now, who besides Mrs. Weasley might be a good candidate for having cared for a child around Harry's age that night? Can we think of someone who has experience caring for children, someone with whom Dumbledore has a relationship, someone experienced in law enforcement, someone Dumbledore figured he could trust?" Don't you *see?* Frank Longbottom is this famous auror, and his wife is ? well, we don't know, really, other than we know they have a son Harry's age. Frank is in law enforcement and is apparently pretty good at it, so Dumbledore would have every reason to think Frank and his wife could keep Harry safe, especially with Frank being authorized to use Unforgivable Curses. So Dumbledore asked them to care for Harry while more permanent arrangements were being made that night. <<< at which grey wolf pounces: >> "Every reason to trust them, Cindy? They weren't part of the old gang. And about the only Auror that Dumbledore trusts is Moody, who happens to *not* use the Unforgivables at every turn. I wouldn't leave a boy in charge of someone who might just start an AK duel while the boy's in the house." Exclaimed the Grey Wolf "And the best reason is exactly the reaon you've said: it could've leaked out, and put both the Longbottoms AND Harry in danger. << and Meg adds: >> surely you understand that Frank Longbottom would be a horrible choice to stick Harry with for that day? He was an auror. He was busy trying to round up all of these DEs and handle the Black/Pettigrew incident. And Mrs.Longbottom? She was dealing with Neville. And only Neville. Why would Dumbledore put Harry in the hands of someone who works so closely with people in the dark arts? People who had permission to use the Unforgivable Curses? That would put Harry in horrible danger. The Weasleys were a safe choice.<< Now, now!! How do we know they were not part of the old gang? Dumbledore merely mentions those that Sirius should contact ?it's not an exclusive list. And then, members who are dead (or dead for all useful purposes) are not likely to be mentioned are they? Moody is Dumbledore's good friend ? that doesn't mean that he didn't trust Longbottom, who for all we know, did *not* use the unforgiveables at every turn either! There were plenty of aurors to round up theDE's ? surely one could have been spared for the crucial task of protecting the-boy-who-lived? With Harry already in maximum danger, the ideal place to leave him would be with a capable auror, who could fight with all the tools at his disposal for the child's safety atleast till the immediate danger was ascertained and other arrangements could be made. Remember, this was a spur-of-the- moment decision from Dumbledore, not a well thought out decoy. No, no .the Longbottoms make perfect sense. Look at Cindy's further argument: >> Well, how does Dumbledore react the *minute* Harry raises the issue of the Longbottoms: 'Dumbledore gave Harry a very sharp look.' Then, when Dumbledore speaks, his voice was 'full of a bitterness Harry had never heard there before.' Oh, Dumbledore is upset and disgusted all right ? he's upset that the people he selected to care for Harry were later captured and tortured, possibly as a result of Dumbledore's decision to involve them in the first place. Oh, and it gets even better once we get to the Bang assessment. *Why* did Mrs. Lestrange go to the Longbottom home looking for Voldemort? Doesn't it make sense that the Pensieve Four sought out the Longbottoms because the Longbottoms had harbored Harry that night? See, that is not only Bangy, it answers a major story mystery ? how did the Pensieve Four become so convinced that the answer to Voldemort's whereabouts lay in the Longbottoms? Well, if the Longbottoms were a safe haven for the boy who defeated Voldemort, it is logical that the Longbottoms might know something -?anything at all, maybe even something they overheard -? about Voldemort's whereabouts."<<< Too-Woo! Sure that make sense! >> Well, isn't it quite possible that Harry is the *reason* that the Longbottoms became famous that night -? because they were chosen to shelter The Boy Who Lived?" They wouldn't have been famous and targeted by the Pensieve Four sometime later had it not been for their cooperating with Dumbledore in Harry's care. No wonder Dumbledore is surprised that Neville has never mentioned this to Harry."<< Now Cindy, Cindy! Don't you think you're missing yet another bang here? Neville need not know a thing about it ? he could just take it for granted that his folks were famous, couldn't he? He is told that his parents stood for Courage and Honor, that they were supremely trusted by Dumbledore and he backs off from having to live up to that, indeed, to get all the details behind the statements. And in the WW, they could be famous without the details ever being known, So what happens when Neville finally does find out? What if he now blames Harry for the state of his parents? How would the WW see him if it all comes out? Will his eroding store of `Good Will' stand such an expose'? Will Neville betray Harry? Or will he show his resentment in other ways? What a twist for Harry to have to also deal with a newly antagonistic Neville ? a powerful Neville who has suddenly realized his own potential? Ummmm .could be something there methinks! Errol finishes his monologue to find a simply furious Wolf looming over him. Errol flutters just out of reach of a fatal pounce and settles on to the handrail of the racing boat..after all, what can a feeble owl do against those powerful claws? (shudder!) Thinking it's high time he made his own position clear, Errol looks meekly up at Meg and the Grey wolf "I swear I'm totally against piracy on the high seas" he hoots." But Cindy merely *thinks* it's piracy ? look! It's a whole new boat altogether!" Errol stretches a wing to point behind the quarrelling trio to an identical racing boat bobbing on the waves, with tiny lettering on its side. The grey wolf leans over to read the tentative inscription: L.I.G.H.T.N.I.N.G (Longbottoms Incharge, Get Hit with Torture, Neville Is Not Grateful) Undercover of this diversion, Errol quietly slips away, not quite sure how the others will react. Oh, and one more thing! Grey wolf: >>And the theory does not need to go anyplace, except to explain why Harry disappeared from the radar for a full day. It's the *first* mystery of the books, after all."<< Well, as Cindy says "Where's the Bang in *that* ??? Errol Whose mother still butters bread for the whole family. From jferer at yahoo.com Fri Aug 30 02:00:07 2002 From: jferer at yahoo.com (jferer) Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 02:00:07 -0000 Subject: What Makes a Viable Population In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43346 Marcus:"I am somewhat amused by assertions that 20,000 people do not make a viable population. I spent my teenage years in a town of 7000. We had a big factory, a great many smaller ones, ten blocks of a thriving downtown, and a thriving shopping mall." You shouldn't be. Was everything that was sold or consumed in that town made in that big factory? Were any of the stores in the mall national chains? What car did your family drive, and where did it come from? Your town, like all others, is one node in a vast economic/social network that extends far beyond the town line. If it had to survive all on its own, it would be a very different place and life would be very different, too. Meadville, Pennsylvania, my family home, is small. The main stores when I was a child were J.C. Penney, Sears, Montgomery Ward, and the Crawford Store. Only one of them was locally owned, and the products sold there came from elsewhere. Not one car in town was made in town. OTOH, the zipper in my pants DID come from Meadville, because the guy who invented the zipper settled there. The wizard world appears to exist very much on its own, without much dependence on the larger Muggle world. We don't know how and where their food comes from, but most of the stuff we do see doesn't appear to be from the factory in your town or any other town we know. Marcus:"So if you figure that a small Hogwarts student body of about 250 extrapulates into a larger wizard population of 6500, trust me, it IS viable. It is very viable. Don't let your big city experience cloud your judgement." We disagree. Your small town does not a society make. From rvotaw at i-55.com Fri Aug 30 02:18:20 2002 From: rvotaw at i-55.com (Richelle Votaw) Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 21:18:20 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Translation problems/ Sirius Black/ Molly did so baby sit Harry/ References: Message-ID: <00af01c24fcb$831a75e0$d49fcdd1@istu757> No: HPFGUIDX 43347 Phyllis writes: > I received my adult-version UK Harry Potter paperbacks last night, > and started reading PS. When I got to the part when Hagrid, after > delivering Harry to Dumbledore on Privet Dr., is ready to depart, I > was surprised that instead of his saying "I've got to get this bike > back to Sirius" (as my US copy reads), he instead says "I've got to > get this bike put away." Okay, that sort of thing really grates at my nerves. There's a huge difference in those two phrases! The UK version could mean that Sirius said, "Here, take my bike. Don't worry about returning it, I'll send an owl later." Or whatever. Which means Hagrid would have to put it away until Sirius came back for it. Oh, how annoying these U.S. translations are. I really am going to order the British version! On another note regarding translations, the change in GoF of "one more curse" to "one more murder." There was speculation a while back on whose the "one more murder" was, by U.S. readers like me, who then learned that it wasn't supposed to say "murder" at all, but curse. And that "one more curse" would be the Imperious Curse to be placed on Moody, right? That's how I'm interpreting it, anyway. bboy_mn writes: > I'm pretty sure you answered your own question. Harry had a long time > in which his hatred and anger toward Sirius could build. Then he is > confronted by a 'heat of the battle' situation. Harry and friends are > being held at wand point by Sirius, Sirius has just attack and broken > the leg of his best friend (Ron), he appears to have already made two >attempts on Harry's life, and I'm sure Harry assumes that he and his > friends are in mortal peril; I would say emtions (fear, anger, hate) >are running high in the moment before Harry physically attacks Sirus. You know, what's always interested me about PoA is how complete and consuming the hatred toward Sirius Black is. JKR builds it to such a high that you (at least me) as the reader literally hate him with a passion. If someone were to have walked in the room while I was reading PoA for the first time and introduced himself as Sirius Black I'd have probably jumped him and done serious damage before coming to my senses. Yet at the end he's our best friend and we're so pleased that he's escaped. Incredible bit of writing, and very much makes you feel as Harry must feel. It's sort of a pendelum swing of emotions. Errol writes: > Errol scratches his wise old head.But Grey Wolf! The Weasleys > already knew that Harry stayed with muggles - that's one of > the firstthings Ron asks Harry about.and how difficult would it have > been for Authur to figure out where Harry went? After all, other > wizarding folk *did* find Harry! Besides, Molly's mothering instincts > are so strong,that she possibly couldn't have refrained from checking > on Harry oncethey had bonded under such *tragic* circumstances don't > you think?Promise to Dumbledore or no! Well, I still say that Molly could have checked on Harry over the years. Through Arabella Figg. Not actually come there in any way, shape, or form, but through some connection somewhere. Head in the fireplace or something (forgot what it was called, sorry). Thus her "Poor *dear* (Emphasis already there, not mine)--no wonder he was alone, I wondered." I take this to mean "no wonder he was alone, he's grown up with those horrid Muggles that hate the sight of him" NOT "no wonder he was alone, he's grown up with Muggles." I could be wrong, but still, Mrs. Weasley is practically the only person *not* to recognize Harry as Harry Potter because in her mind he's still the traumatized baby she cared for that fateful day. And no, she can't have seen pictures, why would Mrs. Figg be taking Harry's picture? Too suspicous, that. Well, now, must send this off before I think of something else to add and make it even more confusing. Richelle From nithya_rachel at hotmail.com Fri Aug 30 02:16:27 2002 From: nithya_rachel at hotmail.com (errolowl) Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 02:16:27 -0000 Subject: Harry's Good Will? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43348 Sirius Kase wrote about the erosion of good will as far as Harry's concerned in the general WW: >>But, there is no hard evidence that Harry is telling the truth.So it shouldn't be surprising that not all wizards think well of Harry. Power corrupts, ya know. My contention is the group of wizards who have reservations about his character may be growing. Some will believe him and Dumbledore, some will think badly of him, and a large group will just not know whom to trust. It doesn't help that Dumbledore's heroic reputation was earned over fifty years ago, and that he has a weird sense of humor and comes across as "barking mad" (i.e. crazy) > > Harry's enemies are doing a great job of getting out the unfavorable interpretation of the observable evidence. Remember, Rita and the Malfoys have not been publicly discredited. *We* know that they are baddies, but they are influential. << How true! And Goodness, It's not only the bad guys that are influential. The list of "good" wizards starting to have serious reservations about Harry start with the Minister ..and quite surely Amos Diggory? True, he doesn't seem to blame Harry at the end of GoF, but he was too shaken by the news to have really thought things through to himself. Mrs. Diggory accepted Harry's story and Amos was still sobbing through the interview, going along with his wife's point of view .but we've already seen that Amos can't think straight where his son is concerned ? and he doesn't even have a store of good will for Harry by now. I'd lay great odds that Amos has resentment festering under his apparent acceptance, and that the slightest nudge would be enough for him to count Harry as a murderer. So, the minister of Magic and an influential member of the ministry already have no cause to like Harry, and it's going to damage his case. And in spite of all his annoyance with his fame, Harry's going to take it pretty badly if he were to lose his position as the favorite son of the WW ? that one thing that makes his life bearable, that one thing that is so different from the way the Dursley's treated him .If he were to go back to being treated like "something smelly the cat dragged in" by a whole population, it's going to dent his resilience at the very least! And it seems almost inevitable by now Errol. From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Fri Aug 30 02:37:10 2002 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (bboy_mn) Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 02:37:10 -0000 Subject: What Makes a Viable Population In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43349 MARCUS Comments: --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "prefectmarcus" wrote: > I am somewhat amused by assertions that 20,000 people do not make a > viable population. I spent my teenage years in a town of 7000. We > had a big factory, a great many smaller ones, ten blocks of a > thriving downtown, and a thriving shopping mall. > > My first 14 years were spent in a town of 1,400. There was a > thriving downtown of four to six blocks. There were several hotels, > resturants, banks, and fast food joints. It even had one-way > streets! The main industry was farming and ranching. There wasn't > any tourist trade to speak of. It was the county seat, so it did > have that. > > So if you figure that a small Hogwarts student body of about 250 > extrapulates into a larger wizard population of 6500, trust me, it IS > viable. It is very viable. Don't let your big city experience cloud > your judgement. > > Philadelphia at the time of the revolution was the largest city in > the American colonies, and it had a population of only 25,000. > (http://mcmcweb.er.usgs.gov/phil/philpopdata.html) > > I think one quote in this discussion is very telling. Ron stated in > CoS that unless the wizards had intermarried with the muggles, the > wizards would have died out. Now how true that is, I do not know. > JKR likes to have her characters state things as truth which are only > opinions or even distortions of the truth. But it is appropo to this > thread, I'm sure you will agree. > > Marcus bboy_mn adds: I had thoughts in a similar vein as I thought about this. It's hard to picture the wizard world when all you do is assign a population number to it. Regardless of where you live in the world, as long as your community is outside a major population center, you can pick your own personal number for wizard population and spead those people out over your local communities, and use that as a perspective. There are few counties in England that have 150,000 to 300,000 population. When you look at the land mass and number of villages, towns, and cities and consider that most of those people don't know each other, then an equivalent population of wizards starts to look substantial. How big do you think Diagon Alley is? Assuming, residences and industry, 5,000 seems reasonable. That's a pretty substantial community. How about Hogsmeade; how big? Assuming, residence, shops, small industy, etc... and based on the description of Harry and friends walking to the stile to meet Sirius, the village seems reasonable large, so lets say 1,000 to 2,000. Next, we know several people live in the country, so they are very spread out. Diggory's, Weasley's and someone else all live within walking distance of Stoat Hill. We know Diggle lives near Kent. So now we try to account for all the other thousands of people. So, the purpose of this excesize is to look at the wizard community spead over geographic area and assembled into communities. In that case, even a relatively small number seems substantial. While some calculations seem to indicate 20,000, that's still a pretty substanital community. My personal estimates are much higher; I'm up in the 6 figure range. We also have to consider that, as meticulous, knowlegdable, and well researched as J.K.Rowling is, she may not have calculated every single detail down to the last decimal place. Her goal as an author is to create a believable wizard world, one the is free enough of obvious inconsistencies that we accept it a first glance and are absorbed into the story rather than being distracted by some detail. I seriously doubt that she (JKR) anticpated that we would be out here trying to calculate the wizard world population down to the last man, woman, and child. Just some thoughts. bboy_mn From nithya_rachel at hotmail.com Fri Aug 30 02:42:24 2002 From: nithya_rachel at hotmail.com (errolowl) Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 02:42:24 -0000 Subject: Molly did so baby sit Harry (Not !) In-Reply-To: <00af01c24fcb$831a75e0$d49fcdd1@istu757> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43350 On my insisting that Molly couldn't have stayed away from Privet Drive had she been the one to look after Harry those fateful 24 hours, Richelle writes: >>Well, I still say that Molly could have checked on Harry over the years. Through Arabella Figg. Not actually come there in any way, shape, or form,but through some connection somewhere.<< Too true, she could have...but I say most probably not. If she had really taken an interest in Harry over the years, she would have been aware that he turned 11 that year, and would have been on the lookout for him at Kings Cross. Instead, the introduction is almost prosaic...given Molly's tendency to be slightly over-anxious about her children, that would be too much out of character! besides, as bboy_mn remarked, about Hagrid's route, >>Hagrid specifically mentions Bristol, which is West of the Burrow whileLondon/Surrey is East of the Burrow.<< Doesn't fit in too easily with the Weasley theory, now does it? Errol, Who thinks that the Weasleys have more than their fair share of Harry (well, no, not really!) From sphause at earthlink.net Fri Aug 30 03:10:51 2002 From: sphause at earthlink.net (sphause) Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 21:10:51 -0600 Subject: Predictions Message-ID: <00a901c24fd2$debdc3a0$76355742@co.sprintbbd.net> No: HPFGUIDX 43351 Here are my predictions of what will happen by the end of book 7. I'm interested in hearing anyone else's predictions. 1. Dumbledore will die (Fairly Obvious) 2. Harry, Ron and Hermione will not die (Duh!) 3. Snape will be a hero 4. Snape will give his life to save Harry's 5. If Snape does not die, he will become the headmaster. 6. If Snape does dies, McGonagall will become the headmaster. 7. Voldemort will die at Harry's hand never to return. 8. Ron and Hermione will be an item. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From rvotaw at i-55.com Fri Aug 30 03:22:20 2002 From: rvotaw at i-55.com (Richelle Votaw) Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 22:22:20 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Molly did so baby sit Harry (Not !--So!)/ Predictions References: Message-ID: <002301c24fd4$744168e0$b8a2cdd1@istu757> No: HPFGUIDX 43352 Errol writes: > On my insisting that Molly couldn't have stayed away from Privet > Drive had she been the one to look after Harry those fateful 24 hours, > Richelle writes: > >>Well, I still say that Molly could have checked on Harry over the > years. Through Arabella Figg. Not actually come there in any way, > shape, or form,but through some connection somewhere.<< > > Too true, she could have...but I say most probably not. If she had > really taken an interest in Harry over the years, she would have been > aware that he turned 11 that year, and would have been on the lookout > for him at Kings Cross. Instead, the introduction is almost > prosaic...given Molly's tendency to be slightly over-anxious about > her children, that would be too much out of character! Oh, I don't know, I see Molly as a bit scatter brained when parting with her children. She was sending what, four off to Hogwarts that year? With only one left in the nest? Picture the mayhem as they were packing up to leave that very morning. Quite chaotic. > besides, as bboy_mn remarked, about Hagrid's route, > >>Hagrid specifically mentions Bristol, which is West of the Burrow > whileLondon/Surrey is East of the Burrow.<< > > Doesn't fit in too easily with the Weasley theory, now does it? Ah, that is where I think Hagrid left a little too early and rode around a while before realizing, oops, time to meet Dumbledore. :) Trust me, I've got an explanation for everything. Not always a very good explanation, but an explanation nonetheless. :) Sphause predicts: > 1. Dumbledore will die (Fairly Obvious) Probably. > 2. Harry, Ron and Hermione will not die (Duh!) Not necessarily. I actually find it quite easy to believe that either Ron or Harry will die. Hermione I doubt would though, just doesn't fit in anywhere. Yet. Mind you, I want them all alive, though. There's just that "sacrifice" theme running continuously through the books. Of course, that could lead into the Harry dies but isn't dead theory. :) I like that one. > 3. Snape will be a hero Probably. Of course, he has been already, just not very, I don't know, likeable. I like him, though, just . . .well . . . can't put my finger on it. > 4. Snape will give his life to save Harry's Probably again. Either this or he will double cross Dumbledore. Hey, it's always possible. > 5. If Snape does not die, he will become the headmaster. No, can't put him ahead of McGonagall. > 6. If Snape does dies, McGonagall will become the headmaster. I think she will be headmistress if Dumbledore does indeed die. Or retire or something. Not Snape. > 7. Voldemort will die at Harry's hand never to return. Either that or lose all magical powers which would be for him worse than death. Though I won't be happy unless he is truly one hundred percent dead. I like the theory, mentioned above, that Harry will face Voldemort, Voldemort will kill him and die in the process because of the scar and it's connection to him. So Harry will die but he won't be really dead. He won't. Really. I SAID HE WON'T!!!!!!!!!! Oh, sorry for yelling. > 8. Ron and Hermione will be an item. Very likely, as long as they're both alive. :) Now, I really must send this and go to bed. I must. Richelle From jferer at yahoo.com Fri Aug 30 03:26:33 2002 From: jferer at yahoo.com (jferer) Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 03:26:33 -0000 Subject: Predictions In-Reply-To: <00a901c24fd2$debdc3a0$76355742@co.sprintbbd.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43353 These are fun. We've had 'em a zillion times, but they're fun anyway. Sphause's predictions, by the numbers: 1. Dumbledore will die (Fairly Obvious) Call the florist. 2. Harry, Ron and Hermione will not die (Duh!) Don't be too sure. Ron's fate is by no means sure, and JKR plays coy with Harry's. I'd say he's going to live. I think Hermione is safe 3. Snape will be a hero Agreed, but no the conventional kind. 4. Snape will give his life to save Harry's Maybe. At least in some act to save the wizard world. 5. If Snape does not die, he will become the headmaster. Hope not. He's on the right side, but that doesn't make him nice. My first choice would be Lupin. 6. If Snape does dies, McGonagall will become the headmaster. You didn't mention McGonagall among the casualties, but I think she will be one. 7. Voldemort will die at Harry's hand never to return. I don't know what I think. it might be left ambiguous. 8. Ron and Hermione will be an item. One of the worst mismatches in literary history. May have come and gone by then. From eloiseherisson at aol.com Fri Aug 30 05:28:05 2002 From: eloiseherisson at aol.com (eloiseherisson at aol.com) Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 01:28:05 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Ireland Message-ID: <12b.1694b49a.2aa05c65@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 43354 In a message dated 29/08/2002 23:38:30 GMT Standard Time, jferer at yahoo.com writes: > Anna Maria:"So the two teams playing in the World Cup final are > Ireland and Bulgaria. The Bulgarian Minister for Magic is in the top > box with Fudge. There's no mention of the Irish Minister. > Seamus, and presumably other Irish students, attend Hogwarts, in > Britain. Ireland, England, Scotland, and Wales all have their own > national Quidditch teams. Yet students from at least three of these > places..." > > Excellent point, and there's no explanation I know of. Did the Irish > wizards have more in common with their fellow wizards in other parts > of the Isles than with their strife-torn Muggle neighbors? The idea > is attractive, anyway. > This question came up earlier this month and I answered it then as follows: >I suspect that JKR is in part drawing an analogy with Rugby Union. For many >years, The Five Nations championship has been fought between England, >Scotland, Wales, Ireland and France (it is now the Six Nations and includes >Italy). The Irish team is drawn from the whole of Ireland, Northern Ireland >as well as Eire. >I have mislaid my copy of QTTA, but I am sure that Quidditch is much older >than the UK and that Muggle politics would have little influence on how >Wizards organised their sport. Hence they might well play in the same league. >WbV: >> >> Related question considers Seamus Finnegan. He is Irish but he studies in >> Hogwarts. Does it mean that there are no equivalents in Ireland? If there >> is a wizarding school in Ireland, why does he study in Hogwarts? Is he from >> Nothern Ireland? Does it mean that he (or his parents) might have had >> personal reasons for opting for Hogwarts? >Many Irish people or people of Irish descent live in mainland Britain, though >still maintaining strong cultural and family ties with Ireland. However I >think the explanation more probably is that Hogwarts is *the* (either the >only, or the best - pick your interpretation) wizarding school for the >British Isles. After all, the foundation of Hogwarts (and presumably of the >other major schools) predates the concept of Britain or the UK in any modern >political sense. Eloise [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From eloiseherisson at aol.com Fri Aug 30 06:07:53 2002 From: eloiseherisson at aol.com (eloiseherisson at aol.com) Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 02:07:53 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Mystery of Hagrid Returning the Motorbike to Sirius Message-ID: <13.10c5da1a.2aa065b9@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 43355 In a message dated 30/08/2002 02:05:11 GMT Standard Time, bboy_mn at yahoo.com writes: > ~Phyllis Said: > > > I received my adult-version UK Harry Potter paperbacks last night, > > and started reading PS. When I got to the part when Hagrid, after > > delivering Harry to Dumbledore on Privet Dr., is ready to depart, I > > was surprised that instead of his saying "I've got to get this bike > > back to Sirius" (as my US copy reads), he instead says "I've got to > > get this bike put away." > > > > I've long wondered about the inconsistency in Hagrid's saying that he > > has to get the motorbike back to Sirius in SS with Hagrid saying in > > PoA (at the Three Broomsticks) that Sirius had given him the bike and > > told him (Hagrid) that he (Sirius) wouldn't need it anymore. This > > inconsistency is also noted in the HPfGU FAQs Mysteries section. > > > > I checked the page on the Lexicon that shows the differences between > > the US and UK editions of SS/PS, and this wording change is not > > noted. So I'm wondering if this was an error that was noticed after > > PoA and corrected in later printings of PS. > > > > Perhaps this wording change is an acknowledgement that this really > > was an error in the original edition of SS/PS. Bboy_mn: > > OK, now, finally for the actual guess. > > I think some copy editor (or whatever they are called) hadn't read PoA > when he made the change, and Yes, I definitely think it was a change > by the American publisher, done independant of J.K.Rowling. In the > limited context he had, it probably seemed like a reasonable > clarification of the text. BUT HE SCREWED IT UP. (pardon my French) > > That's why I very seriously hope they stop or extremely minimize the > English to English translations of the book. > > By the way, you might want to email that difference to the HP Lexicon. > I'm sure they will appreciate it. They are frequently seen in this > forum, so they may pick it up anyway. Eloise: I don't think you can blame the US editors for this one. I have an older UK copy (first ed paperback) which similarly says that Hagrid is intending to return the bike to Sirius, as does Phyllis's US copy, so the Lexicon was correct: it's not a 'translation' issue. My guess is that either JKR had simply forgotten she'd written that when she wrote the scene in the Three Broomsticks or that it was only in writing PoA that she started to sort out in her own mind the chronology of what really happened in the 48 hours following Voldemort's vapourisation. Either way, the change in the most recent UK edition would seem to be an attempt to correct the inconsistency. Recently there was a thread asking what the differences between the grown-up and children's version were. It will be interesting to see if Phyllis comes up with any more textual differences. If the inconsistencies are being ironed out, perhaps with the latest UK edition we might get the definitive version. Eloise [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From tabouli at unite.com.au Fri Aug 30 08:54:45 2002 From: tabouli at unite.com.au (Tabouli) Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 18:54:45 +1000 Subject: Cartoon characters, The McHogwarts Franchise (TBAY trickle) Message-ID: <006b01c25002$f4dbd700$472532d2@price> No: HPFGUIDX 43356 Dicentra: > Voldemort isn't well fleshed-out because he's had so little screen time, but I wouldn't call him a Toon either.< (resists temptation to make bad puns about Voldemort's new flesh) I, on the other hand, have always found Voldemort decidedly Toonish. To me he's a total cartoon villain. A discarded extra from the animated Lord of the Rings! Red eyed and black cloaked and hissing and fondling his snake and torturing his snivelling sidekick and blundering constantly in his efforts to slay the hero... he's millimetres away from Inspector Gadget's Doctor Claw! "I'll get you next time, Potter... next time..." Give me Barty Junior the BABEMEISTER any day. (ignores shadow of a Wolf and a dishwasher in peripheral vision) As for the "little screen time" escape clause, nope, I don't let JKR off the hook that easy. See, as someone else pointed out long long ago, Tom Riddle only popped up briefly in CoS, and is *much* better drawn than his later Moldy incarnation (sudden sniggering at the thought of calling the Big V "Voldi" which is hastily suppressed). He still had some style. Some flesh (if not literally). Fudge probably has about the same amount of screen time as Voldi and he's an interesting, complex figure. Maybe the Big V *has* finally flipped by Book 4, but did he have to flip in so Cartoon Evil Overlordish a way? Grf. *** Just as the bedraggled figure in the dinghy returns to the map, trying to figure out where she is, a strange tinkly tune fills the sea air. After several tinkly verses, which remind her oddly of curly haired little girls and confectionary, she tracks down its source as the lurid pink mobile phone, still in the slot on the mysterious metal machine. There is a new message on it. Catlady: > JKR Interviews: Hogwarts is the only wizarding school for UK and it has 1000 students.< > >Books: the references to other schools cited by Elkins and the depiction of approximately 280 students at Hogwarts Castle.< > >Way to make all this evidence be true at the same time: Hogwarts has more than one campus. The original campus, the Castle, has circa 280 students and is called "Hogwarts" for short, while the other campus(es) are named Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry at (e.g.) Woodcroft and called e.g. "Woodcroft"< Blinking to herself, she replaces the phone in the slot, and presses the lever. This time the grinding and chugging is a little more enthusiastic, and the piece of paper at the other end emerges with more aplomb. She picks it up curiously. It reads: MCHAPPYMEAL (Multiple Campus Hogwarts Augments Population, Purporting Youngsters Might Enter Alternatively Located Schools). As before, this is following by a clatter of little badges, this time sealed in tiny plastic packets with a free toy inside. The badges have the above slogan on them, encircling a tiny picture of a hamburger, fries and soft drink. Shaking her head, she scoops them into the pocket of one of the faded costumes in the dinghy and returns to the map... Tabouli. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Fri Aug 30 09:13:34 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 09:13:34 -0000 Subject: The Scale of Things In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43357 "jferer" wrote: > Grey Wolf, describing Catlady's Multiple Campus Theory:"So, I think > it's time to bring back a theory of a fellow listee that adresses > this problem quite satisfactorily: Catlady_de_los_Angeles is the > author of the theory, which I normally call "Multiple Campus Hogwarts > As you've probably guessed, the theory says that Hogwarts School of > Witchcraft and Wizardry is divided on a number of campuses and > hidden in diverse places all over Britatin. This division makes > sense, since a big concentration of magic and wizards at one point > always causes trouble, and is easier to hide (say) four small schools > than one big one. At this point, people against the theory point out > that the place Harry goes to is designated as *the* Hogawarts, but > this is no big deal: in my experience, the main campus is always > refered to with the name of the whole school, while the other > campuses receive lesser names." > > The problem with this theory is there is no, absolutely no, evidence > for it whatsoever - quite the contrary. I don't think it's credible > that we would have heard nothing of these campuses before. JKR has > stated that Hogwarts is the only wizarding school in Britain; to > stretch that into allowing multiple campuses is just like saying that > the University of California [system] is one school. No, it's like saying that my university, with 6 campuses scattered all over the geography of my country, is one school. And you know, it is. Each of the campuses runs like an independent entity, with exclusive teachers and with it's own library, psicological service and else. Yet it is still one and the same school: there is a man (I assume he's a man, but I don't know him/her) at the top of it all, and our money is paid to the same place. Appart from that, we have no contact between the campuses, and we never mention them at all - in fact, it has taken me three years to discover that one of the campus is two streets from mine. It's simply unimportant whether there are or not, because I'll never visit them, or have anything to do with them. Besides, in this case, the theory is not a case of being mentioned in the canon, because I freely admit that there isn't any, but a case of eliminating the impossible until only the possible, albeit umprobable remains. I like the multiple campuses theory because it works, while all other possibilities simply don't. > On the one hand, we're saying here that JKR's own pronouncement that > there are 1,000 students at Hogwarts "contradicts canon," largely > because JKR hasn't mentioned other students in Harry's year. We're > taking that as proof more students can't possibly exist, but we're > willing to believe in entire campuses that JKR hasn't seen fit to > mention or suggest. Let's take a closer look at that affirmation. 1000 students means 143 students per year. We know that, in Harry's year, there are twenty students if you add up Gryyfindor and Hufflepuff (by the number of ear-thingies in the greenhouse) and another twenty between Gryffindor and Slytherin (by the number of brooms in Hooch's flying lesson). Since we know there are ten people in Harry's Gryffindor and year (five named boys, three named girls and two unamed girls that get a chance against the boggart), that means Slytherin and Hufflepuff also have ten. Normally, it is assumed that Ravenclaw would have yet another 10 (maybe a few more, 15 or maybe 20, doubling in number the other houses of the year). By the 1000 figure, we get a Ravenclaw house with 113 students, which I think we can safely assume that is not the case. So this approach is impossible (or at least, highly unlikely, and in that case I would still pick the campuses theory). There are, of course, other posibilities, mentioning that Harry's year is especially low in body count: that year they're 40, but normally they would be many more, and the other years are normal. Let's see where that takes us: (1000-40)/6 = 160 students/year. Which means that there are normally 40 students per house. Again, this seems highly unlikely (I can accept maybe a reduction of half the number, and that would be hard to believe, but a quarter?). Finally, someone (a long time ago) mentioned that maybe there were multiple groups of students in the same year and the same house. We need 100 groups of ten people, so about 14 per year, getting three or four different groups in each's year's house. Now, if you find hard to believe that Harry hasn't heard of other (distant and lesser) campuses of Hogwarts, I hope that you find even harder that there are tw other griffyndor groups of his same age that he hasn't ever mentioned. There is no need, however: canon refuses this point right off: Snape is the only potions teacher. He teaches four hours of class per week to every two groups: 50 pairs * 4 hours: 200 hours of class/week (a week only has 168 hours). He'd have to use time turners even to sleep, and he'd definetely would have no free time to look for Harry as he always seems to be doing. Now, let's take a look at the canon *against* 1000 students at Hogwarts (campus). One is teachers: there are 14 teachers that we know of (unless there are many like Sybil that don't attend the banquets, which I doubt). With the 280 figure, some of them already have trouble to teach everyone every week. If you quadruple that number and get 1000 students in the same place, some of the teachers have to use Time-turners constantly just to be able to teach everyone, which is even *more* against canon than the campuses theory. Another thing is the sorting hat: 143 new students to sort, two per minute, 70-odd minutes (an hour and ten minutes). Making it faster, 4 per minute (one every 15 seconds, which is hard to believe), takes 35 minutes. Yet, in PoA, they manage to do it in a short conversation between McGonnagal, Harry and Hermione, which could have taken, max, 15 minutes. There are, IIRC, more canon aginst it, too: check the lexicon, the essay about the number of students (most of what I've put here comes from there, anyway). At any rate, it seems highly unlikely that JKR's 1000 student figure fits if Hogwarts is all there is to it. Besides, there is the fact that the few times Harry actually *sees* 1000 students in the same place are special ocations: quidditch matches, balls, etc. Just as if *they came especifically for that*. > Several of us have, using different approaches, extrapolated the > 1,000 student figure into a possible 20,000 wizard population for > Britian. That's enough, but barely, to support a kind of wizard > society. That we each got to approximately the same place in > different ways makes the 20,000 figure more credible. I am not attacking that number! I don't know enough about population ratios and minimun number of people for society to work to do anything but accept those numbers. I'm only pointing out that, if you want to start those calculations in the 1000 figure, you're going to need some sort of explanation of how the figure fits canon -because the 1000 students, right now, fits very poorly. > JKR is the creator and ruling deity of the Harry Potter Universe. If > she says there's 1,000 students, then there's 1,000 students. I think > that creates a lot of problems for imagining a viable wizarding > society, but there it is. We have to stretch that 20,000 population, > if that's how many wizards there are, to a large bureaucracy (MOM), > industry (Everything from Bertie Bott's to Firebolts), arts, > literature, entertainment, academia and sports. Everybody must have > two jobs or something. This is metathinking for all it's worth, and everyone who's been on the list for some time knows how I feel about it, but I'm taking a shoot, this time: JKR does NOT give the 1000 figure in hard canon: she gave it in a chat interview, which is quite lower than that. From canon, the best estimate is: 40 people in Harry's year. From what we see in the common room, about 10 people in other years, 280 students in total. THAT's the canon for number of students, basing ourselves in the only figure that repeats itself throughtout the books so far: 10 students per house per year. IIRC, someone made the necessary calculations for the wizard population from the 280 students, and got about 5000 people, and declared that it was not enough to keep the industries running. > What I know is that I can't explain it all, since I'm not willing to > totally make stuff up. We have to work with what we can find in or > reasonablly extrapolate from canon. And Catlady's theory of multiple campuses is a rasonable extrapolation from canon, which in this case means that makes all the numbers fit, without stretching too much the possibilities, and basing it in RL situation: how schools and Universities break up their students into managable numbers by creating different sites all over the place, and running them as different institutions under a single head. Of course, if you don't want to believe it, it's up to you, you're free to think whatever you want (that's basic!). I've been in the list a long time now, and it's the best theory so far. Maybe you can come up with a better one, in which case this could be a very interesting discusion, but the easy way out (it is so because JKR said so, or shortly: metathinking) is not good enough for me. Hope that helps, Grey Wolf, who'd like to know what he can call "jferer", since this screen name is somewhat impersonal. From dark30 at vcn.bc.ca Fri Aug 30 04:34:42 2002 From: dark30 at vcn.bc.ca (tbernhard2000) Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 04:34:42 -0000 Subject: Abstemiousness with truth - the careful fantasy world of Potter Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43358 In all situations in my own life, I have found it both easier and more rewarding when the context that obtains is one of open communication and transparency, which by extension, creates the kind of equality between involved parties that results when little is hidden, when information, or knowledge, cannot or is not owned, or held as a private possession. A far cry from the so-called magical world of Harry Potter. The hardest thing to accept about the apparent magical world of Harry Potter is that, in spite of Dumbledore's reticence regarding the reason Voldemort wants Harry dead, in spite of "the restricted section," which, I point out, contains information essential to the so-called heroes' quest, in spite of so many characters being mysteries, as they say, to other characters, as Black and Snape, for instance, are, or Neville is to the trio, signs both of intransigence, in the first case, or betraying every sign of Rowling's unravelling of facts on a "need to know" basis - that is, in the context of her literary career, in terms of making the series "make sense" at the end of it all - as is the case with Neville, in spite of Hermione's secret use of the Time Turner, a secret that proved quite dangerous, in particular to Hermione, and a secrecy that had to be pierced in order to complete the given quest, all of these ignorances involving core aspects of the story, Harry and the trio can still succeed. How is this possible? Are we to assume fate, a grossly misunderstood concept in my opinion, being myself something of a secular calvinist, declares that Harry and the trio will succeed whether or not those around them attempt to keep them in the dark, to impose, in a way, ignorance upon them? Do we really believe Harry's successful encounters so far have been written beforehand, and the outcome assured? His response to the 2nd task seems central here. His success depends upon some inner quality, which may or may not be connected to his so-called magical qualities, that makes him stay. He goes through no internal debate. His staying was not quite a decision; rather, as he later reflects, it was an action, the right one, we agree, made in ignorance. A bit of pathos. Let me try to demonstrate my reading of Rowling like this - The so- called magical world of Harry Potter is, on one level, on perhaps the most fundamental level, unequivocally nothing more than the extended fantasy-world of an abused boy stuck in a closet. I cannot state this strongly enough. Whether the boy is in fact adopted, or is imagining that he is adopted, taken from his so-called real parents, whether he attends a regular school or isn't even allowed to do that, it is his fantasy world to which we are exposed. And the abstemiousness with truth characteristic of that world is the signal, the flashing lights, as it were, of the guard towers, of the circumference of Hogwarts' famous ancient magical protection - read, the constricted limits of the abused boy's knowing. That protection, I submit, is directed inwards as much as it is directed outwards. Even the widespread anti-muggle charms appear to me to be defenses against the reality of sustained punishment. There is also mention of some similar sort of ancient magical protection regarding the Dursley's residence. This too, in my reading, seems as much an inwards pressure as an outwards one. Do we agree with Dumbledore's assessment that Harry should grow up away from what we are supposed to believe are the horrifying and dangerous consequences of fame, and be, rather, reared by people who hate what he represents, mistrust and abuse him? Of course not. So we must accept that Dumbledore's assurance about the safety of the Dursley's house is true - otherwise, he's just being a stupid old man who assumes family is more important than human rights. This so- called safety certainly looks like the rationalization of someone in a hopeless and helpless situation to me. And for someone deprived of information, of ways of obtaining it, someone for whom the paths to knowledge are closed, ignorance might seem strength. In a real way, however, for such a person, ignorance would surely be some measure of protection. Ignorance about one's actual hopeless and helpless situation, the extent of it, or rather, intensity of it. I'm not sure how much of this line Rowling is conscious of when she writes. I have no intention in this post of addressing that particular moot area. Rather, this is my reading, and as it seems both a general response to the digests I've been getting, on one hand, and an idea that has been an acute difficulty for me since I first read the books, I thought I'd post it in a new thread, see if perhaps this one gets past the Ministry of Moderators. darkthirty "The truth is not a crystal that can be slipped into one's pocket, but an endless current into which one falls headlong." Robert Musil From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Fri Aug 30 10:05:17 2002 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (bboy_mn) Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 10:05:17 -0000 Subject: Twenty 20 Twenty - Always 20 Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43359 We've recently returned to discussing the number of students at Hogwarts and how that relates to the number of people in the wizard world in UK. Well, forget that for a minute and let's go back in time to part of the old 'number of students' arguement that I didn't bother to join in before. Some people are putting a lot of weight in the number 20 as being the significant indicator of how many students there are. Although I haven't track it down yet, I came cross another reference to the number 20 that was unrelated to the number of Hogwarts student and that made me suspicious. Let's examine some 20's (I'm working from memory here so cut me some slack.) 20 Cauldrons in Snape's potions class - But all the students have their own cauldrons. So, maybe, they came into a class room that had 20 school cauldrons in it already, and to that, the student brought their own cauldrons. Now it doesn't mention the student's cauldrons, but where else could they possibly use them. I mean, besided the girl's bathroom. Why does every student have a cauldron, it they are already provided in the class room. I say that number 20 related to cauldrons, does not reflect the class side. Depending on how you want to view it, once the class was in the room, there could have been anywhere from 30 to 60 cauldrons there (best guess, not mathermatically calculated.) 20 Brooms- Apparently, most of you never went to a poor small town school. In an hour of 'Intro to Broom Flying', 40 to 60 kids could have had a go at the brooms. Twenty step up and try it, they step back, and 20 more step up to try it, etc.... Sixty kids in an hour, that's 20 minutes per group of 20. Twenty brooms does not equal 20 students. 20 Ear Muffs in Herbology- Isn't it a bit odd that 20 is just the right number for Slytherins plus Gryffindors, and it just the right number for Hufflepuffs plus Gryffindors? Seems like very exactly match class sizes. Apparently, no chance that there could be one more or less Hufflepuff than Slytherin. So what is to say, there aren't another 20 Hufflepuff/Gryffindors in the next greenhouse. Pro.Sprout gets Harry & friends started with the Mandrakes, then goes to the next greenhouse and gets the next 20 started, then goes back to check on the first 20. General Alternative Theory - Or classes could be broken into sections- Transfigurations (illustration only) 10:00am Gryffindor - 3rd yr - section A 11:00am Gryffindor - 3rd yr - section B DADA 2:00pm Tuesday - Gryffindor - 3rd yr - section A 2:00pm Wednesday - Gryffindor - 3rd yr - section B Someone tried to shoot down this theory, indirectly, by saying that teachers would have to teach something like 13 hours a day. I doubt that they can back that up with numbers. If Snape teaches 3 hours in the morning, and three hours in the afternoon, that's enough for 15 double potions classes per week. Two double classes per grade with time left over. DADA to my knowledge is one class per week. So the DADA teacher could teach 30 classes a week (3hrs morning, 3hrs afternoon, 5 days, total 30hrs). Our window into Harry's world is primarily through Harry's eyes, and Rowling can't possible account for the were abouts of every student; well she could, but he book would be about as long and boring as an encyclopedia. Just for sake of practical writing TONS of stuff simply has to be left out. Conclusion, I think JKR has seized on 20 as a not too big, not too small, just right number as a literary construct. I'm guessing if Harry goes to buy new glasses, he will have 20 styles to choose from. If he goes into a cafe, there will be 20 things on the menu. If he goes for a walk it will take about 20 minutes. If he goes into Fortescue's, he will be able to choose between 20 flavors of ice cream. If he walks into a room of people, it will have about 20 people in it. Everything seems to be in units of 20. Twenty is a nice easy middle of the road, not too big, not too small number that make for smooth easy writing. I don't think it's a statement of absolute quantity. Frequently, you will find that it is not 20 ear muffs but ABOUT 20 ear muffs which is just a quick glance guess by Harry. That's my story and I'm sticking to it. bboy_mn From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Fri Aug 30 10:26:29 2002 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (bboy_mn) Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 10:26:29 -0000 Subject: Twenty 20 Twenty - Always 20 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43360 They are going to hate me for a short post like this, BUT..... JKR said there are 1,000 students. I don't take that as an absolute number. I take that as they typical size of Hogwards. We have some teachers here who I assume will verify that class sizes are not absolute. School enrollment is constantly fluctuating. When it goes down, it leave school district scrambling for more state funds which are typically alloted on a per student basis. So, a typical size of 1,000, in my book, could be anything from 600 to 1400. Since it appear that even if there are a lot of unseen students, Harry year and perhaps the school in general is on the lower end of the typical size. Let's not forget all those unused classrooms, and unused corridors which implies a whole floor of one wing. It appears to me that a significant portion of Hogwarts is unused. Which seems to also imply lower than typical enrollment. That's my story and I'm STILL sticking to it. bboy_mn From iamevilhomer323 at yahoo.com Fri Aug 30 01:14:30 2002 From: iamevilhomer323 at yahoo.com (Evil Homer) Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 18:14:30 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Harry's Good Will? Message-ID: <20020830011430.25908.qmail@web12904.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 43361 --- Sirius Kase wrote: > My post wasn't about my opinion. As bboy_mn > clarifies, I'm describing a > different point of view and that would be the > opinion of a wizard who > doesn't know Harry personally but forms an opinion > based on history, the > media and the grapevine. Everyone *knows* that > Harry is a powerful wizard > who did something good when young. Everyone knows > he's a Quidditch hero. > But they also know that he gets into weird > situations with rather incredible > explanations. Because of his history with > Voldemort, he begins life in the > Wizard World with a huge supply of good will. The > typical wizard on the > street wants to believe him when they hear about his > continuing struggle > with the Dark Side. Especially since his continuing > story is told by the > respected headmaster Dumbledore, hero of the 40's > War. Besides, he's to > young to be evil. I think that Sirius Kase and bboy_mn have struck the nail on the head, and this distrust of Harry is going to continue to grow through out the next 3 books. Look at CoS - this theme was touched upon when Harry was suspected as Slytherin's heir. I think this, plus the discovery that Harry is a Parselmouth truly planted the seeds of doubt in many people's minds who do not know Harry as intimitely as we or his friends do. Even Fudge at the end of GoF confronts Dumbledore about "hiding" the fact that Harry is a Parselmouth. And though he apologizes later for it, think about what Ernie Macmillan has to say when Harry overhears him in the library: That no one knows why Voldemort wanted to kill Harry - that it's probably because he knew Harry was a powerful Dark Wizard and didn't want another Dark Lord taking his(Voldemort's) place. I think this theory - or theories similar to it - may begin to spread throughout the Wizarding Community. > But, there is no hard evidence that Harry is telling > the truth. So it > shouldn't be surprising that not all wizards think > well of Harry. Power > corrupts, ya know. My contention is the group of > wizards who have > reservations about his character may be growing. > Some will believe him and > Dumbledore, some will think badly of him, and a > large group will just not > know whom to trust. It doesn't help that > Dumbledore's heroic reputation was > earned over fifty years ago, and that he has a > weird sense of humor and > comes across as "barking mad" (i.e. crazy) I also wonder if Harry's presence at the time of Cedric's death and the fact that there is only his account of the events that took place will further cast a shadow on his character. Will people suspect him of having a part in Cedric's death? I feel this would be an interesting turn for the stories to take - to give our hero this growing connection to the Dark Side, however imagined this connection may be - makes for a fascinating story. > Harry's enemies are doing a great job of getting out > the unfavorable > interpretation of the observable evidence. > Remember, Rita and the Malfoys > have not been publicly discredited. *We* know that > they are baddies, but > they are influential. > Harry doesn't toot his own > horn. He lets his friends > do the talking. But, his friends respect Harry's > privacy and don't say much > to help his public image. They mean well, but by > not talking, they aren't > giving Harry a positive character reference to > counter the negative. In addition to all this, for the Wizarding community to begin to turn against Harry and doubt him is a far more believable turn, rather than have them continue to practically worship Harry as they have for 13 years. Think about the media in our Muggle World - people get bored when a person is always admired - eventually we see them on the front of the tabliods. And look at Rita Skeeter - she couldn't keep writing about what a "tragic little hero" Harry was - she needed a new angle. I agree with Sirius Kase when he states how your average wizard may feel about Harry at this point in time - his views are very realilistic. -EH ===== "I think it is clear that we can expect great things from you" "Bless them, they'll go to any lengths to ignore magic, even if it's staring them in the face..." "Exactly," said Dumbledore, beaming once more. "Which makes you very different from Tom Riddle. It is our choices, Harry, that show us what we really are, far more than our abilities." "He couldn't know that at this very moment, people meeting in secret all over the country were holding up their glasses and saying in hushed voices: "To Harry Potter- the boy who lived!" __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes http://finance.yahoo.com From doffy99 at yahoo.com Fri Aug 30 03:51:35 2002 From: doffy99 at yahoo.com (doffy99) Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 03:51:35 -0000 Subject: Predictions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43362 Before I make any predictions, I'd like to say hi to everyone. Been lurking around for a few days. Rather enjoyed the debates. > Sphause's predictions, by the numbers: > 1. Dumbledore will die (Fairly Obvious) This I agree with. I think it may even occur in the very next book. I don't think it will be at Voldemorts hands though. > 2. Harry, Ron and Hermione will not die (Duh!) I don't see Harry dying. I think one of their number will. I'm almost sure Neville will die in some heroic stand to make sure that our trio of heroes survive long enough to win the final battle. He will go out, much like his parents, in a blaze of glory. As for our trio, as I said above, one will die. My guess is, like others, that it will be Ron. > 3. Snape will be a hero > 4. Snape will give his life to save Harry's > 5. If Snape does not die, he will become the headmaster. Snape will be a hero. As an earlier poster said, it will be an odd sort of hero. It will not be in some glorious battle and, this is just a guess, no one will know he's dead for quite some time. He will be missing. His death, will indirectly save Harry and friends. He will NOT become headmaster. > 6. If Snape does dies, McGonagall will become the headmaster. Unlike others, I do NOT see McGonagall being on the casualty list. I do see her taking over as headmaster. > 7. Voldemort will die at Harry's hand never to return. Of course. > 8. Ron and Hermione will be an item. As much as I hate it, I have to agree. I will add my own prediction to these. 9) Harry and Ginny Weasley will become a couple briefly. But Ginny Weasley will sacrifice her life in the fight to come. 10) By the end of book 7, Hagrid will be a wizard. Filch will not. :) doffy99 From doffy99 at yahoo.com Fri Aug 30 10:24:47 2002 From: doffy99 at yahoo.com (doffy99) Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 10:24:47 -0000 Subject: Abstemiousness with truth - the careful fantasy world of Potter In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43363 darkthirty wrote: > Let me try to demonstrate my reading of Rowling like this - The so- > called magical world of Harry Potter is, on one level, on perhaps the > most fundamental level, unequivocally nothing more than the extended > fantasy-world of an abused boy stuck in a closet. I cannot state this > strongly enough. Whether the boy is in fact adopted, or is imagining > that he is adopted, taken from his so-called real parents, whether he > attends a regular school or isn't even allowed to do that, it is his > fantasy world to which we are exposed. And the abstemiousness with > truth characteristic of that world is the signal, the flashing > lights, as it were, of the guard towers, of the circumference of > Hogwarts' famous ancient magical protection - read, the constricted > limits of the abused boy's knowing. That protection, I submit, is > directed inwards as much as it is directed outwards. Even the > widespread anti-muggle charms appear to me to be defenses against the > reality of sustained punishment. There is also mention of some > similar sort of ancient magical protection regarding the Dursley's > residence. This too, in my reading, seems as much an inwards pressure > as an outwards one. > > Do we agree with Dumbledore's assessment that Harry should grow up > away from what we are supposed to believe are the horrifying and > dangerous consequences of fame, and be, rather, reared by people who > hate what he represents, mistrust and abuse him? Of course not. So we > must accept that Dumbledore's assurance about the safety of the > Dursley's house is true - otherwise, he's just being a stupid old man > who assumes family is more important than human rights. This so- > called safety certainly looks like the rationalization of someone in > a hopeless and helpless situation to me. And for someone deprived of > information, of ways of obtaining it, someone for whom the paths to > knowledge are closed, ignorance might seem strength. In a real way, > however, for such a person, ignorance would surely be some measure of > protection. Ignorance about one's actual hopeless and helpless > situation, the extent of it, or rather, intensity of it. > > I'm not sure how much of this line Rowling is conscious of when she > writes. I have no intention in this post of addressing that > particular moot area. Rather, this is my reading, and as it seems > both a general response to the digests I've been getting, on one > hand, and an idea that has been an acute difficulty for me since I > first read the books, I thought I'd post it in a new thread, see if > perhaps this one gets past the Ministry of Moderators. What a downer!! Not the post but the idea that you may be right is a downer. That this entire story, all seven books, are not, in fact, telling us a story of a boy growing into manhood in an odd situation. But instead is telling us about a boy in a horrid situation who is having a fantastic, magical, wonderful, happy fantasy to explain his depressing reality. Namely, Why is he living with the Dursley's? These people who HATE him so much that they lock him in a cupboard under the stairs. The truth of his life, so terrible, that he has created this world, this fantasy, to explain it all. Why his parents died, most likely in a car accident. A little fantasy and all of a sudden, they died tragically, heros in the ultimate fight of good and evil. His mother died to protect him giving him some protection against this evil. His father died valiantly in a fight to protect his home, his wife and his adored child. Why is he stuck at the Dursleys? Why doesn't he have a "Fairy" God- Father who will come in and whisk him away from this terrible life and take him somewhere where he would be happy and loved. It also begs the question, if Harry is being sent off to school (Probably Not Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry) Why does he allow himself to be brought back to this place at the end of every school year? In the fantasy, it's because of some magical protection that has been cast over the house or the people. Unable to explain it, it's kept a secret by a wise, gentle elderly man who Harry trusts implicitly. Assured that he is in no danger at all. While in real life, Harry simply lacks the courage and/or resources to make his get-a-way. The magic gives him courage. Not yet enough to run from his nightmarish life but enough to begin to fight back. Against his mean uncle. Against his naggish Aunt and of course, his bully-ing overweight cousin. The friends in his dream life have qualities that make up those qualities and life that he is missing. Hermione is strong willed and intelligent. Ron is a member of a large, supportive, loving family. Fred and George keep him entertained. Some of them, possibly taken from people Harry actually knows in reality. Draco Malfoy, Crabbe and Goyle represent those of his own age who abuse him. Dudley and the bullies Harry has run into at school. The pint sized evil. Meanwhile Voldemort represents the GREATEST evil. A man obsessed with killing a boy for something he had done before he could walk, talk or even remember. The Survivors guilt coming out. To young, unable to save his parents after the car crash, Harry blames himself. Possibly suicidal tendancies coming through. He searches for WHY his parents died. Why he couldn't save them yet, he saved himself with only a minor scar left as proof. I honestly, don't think this is where JKR is going with the story. I think, in the end, we will be left with questions, but "Did it happen?" "Was it real or fantasy?" won't be the questions. Instead it will be "What happened to Harry, Ron, Hermione and others after they left Hogwarts?" "Did Draco Malfoy grow up to be good or bad?" Did Voldemort ever come back?" I beleive it would be a huge upset if JKR did do it the other way. I think she would receive hate mail. People may choose to never buy another one of her books. This is a kids book. It's supposed to offer hope and teach values like friendship, loyalty and courage. Making this a fantasy of an abused boy would ruin whatever the story had taught. It would leave me, and others, with a bad taste in our mouths. Ideas like: "None of it mattered in the end." "The Courage, loyalty and friendship that was shown didn't even exist in reality." This would be such a let down, especially for children. It's an interesting theory though and it fits so well. -Jeff From msn.tsf at hccnet.nl Fri Aug 30 10:31:39 2002 From: msn.tsf at hccnet.nl (Yoris) Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 12:31:39 +0200 Subject: Predictions References: <00a901c24fd2$debdc3a0$76355742@co.sprintbbd.net> Message-ID: <00a601c25010$6d4a9b60$9600000a@newpc> No: HPFGUIDX 43364 From: "sphause" > Here are my predictions of what will happen by the end of book 7. > > I'm interested in hearing anyone else's predictions. > > 1. Dumbledore will die (Fairly Obvious) NO dumbledore will not die, dumbledore will never really fight just sit back and order around... dumledore is the one that does the final explanation after harry killed voldemort > 2. Harry, Ron and Hermione will not die (Duh!) one of them could die... don't know who though... i believe not ron... so harry taking voldemort with him or hermione... > 3. Snape will be a hero YES! > 4. Snape will give his life to save Harry's NO snape will not give his life to save harry's, thats not good, would make the story very cheap... redeemed criminal saving life of hero but offering his own... > 5. If Snape does not die, he will become the headmaster. yeah i think that too, that would be so cool > 6. If Snape does dies, McGonagall will become the headmaster. no i can't really picture mcgongall as the new 'godfather' of the WW... My first guess is Snape but if not what about Arthur or Bill? I think Bill is a lot like the younger Dumbledore. > 7. Voldemort will die at Harry's hand never to return. I think he might just 'die' the same way as he did before with still the possibility of him ever coming back... the eternal battle between good and evil idea... you only can win *temporarily* and an open end > 8. Ron and Hermione will be an item. most probably but or they will come together in the very end or they will come together earlier in the story but break up in the end, i don't see them having a long relation in the books From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Fri Aug 30 11:06:34 2002 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (bboy_mn) Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 11:06:34 -0000 Subject: Harry's Good Will? In-Reply-To: <20020830011430.25908.qmail@web12904.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43365 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Evil Homer wrote: Evil Homer commenting on Sirius Kase: > > I also wonder if Harry's presence at the time of > Cedric's death and the fact that there is only his > account of the events that took place will further > cast a shadow on his character. Will people suspect > him of having a part in Cedric's death? I feel this > would be an interesting turn for the > stories to take - to give our hero this growing > connection to the Dark Side, however imagined this > connection may be - makes for a fascinating story. > > -EH- bboy_mn comment: > "...the fact that there is only his account of the events that > took place ..." Ahhhh.... It's worse than you think, because there was a whole crowd of people there who witnessed all or part of what happened in the graveyard. True the DE's didn't get there until after Voldemort had his body back, but they've never let anything like the truth get in the way before. Here is a large group of somewhat influential people who have every reason to poison people's minds against Harry. They can't come right out and say "I was there I saw this" to the general public but there are probably sympathetic people they can say it to, then those people can say it to other's leaving out a few details, and next thing you know rumors are flying all over the place. It seems like in every book, people somehow turn against Harry until he redeems himself by saving the day. I swear Harry was so alone and alienated during parts of GoF, it almost made me cry. It certainly made my heart ache. Worst of all, besides the whole school being against him, his best friend turned on him. It's seems like these episodes of alienation are growing more intense with each book. So, I'm inclined to agree, that the isolation, mistrust, and alienation are going to be more intense and more widespead in the future. Rita 'Cheater' Skeeter has already planted huge seeds of doubt in peoples minds. Even Mrs. Weasley who knows both Harry and Hermione was incline to believe that female dog who called herself a reporter. So, it doesn't take much to set people off. Let's face it, everybody loves a hero, until he's human. Just some thoughts. bboy_mn From jferer at yahoo.com Fri Aug 30 11:33:33 2002 From: jferer at yahoo.com (jferer) Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 11:33:33 -0000 Subject: The Scale of Things In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43366 We've both said our piece about how far we can go speculating on canon, so we'll agree to disagree, but on other matters: Grey Wolf:"Let's take a closer look at that affirmation. 1000 students means 143 students per year. We know that, in Harry's year, there are twenty students if you add up Gryyfindor and Hufflepuff (by the number of ear-thingies in the greenhouse) and another twenty between Gryffindor..." [You go on to recap the problems with the 1,000 student figure] We agree, actually. I have the same problems with where the 1,000 students are as you do. During a previous iteration of the 'how many students' debate, and there's been plenty, I looked at some other figures and came up with 467 (let's say 450-500) students. That's a lot more explainable and not so far apart with the 300 student party. That number isn't enough for a viable wizarding society, either. OTOH, I think JKR's the boss, and we have to give pronoucements from interviews a great deal of deference. Grey Wolf:"IIRC, someone made the necessary calculations for the wizard population from the 280 students, and got about 5000 people, and declared that it was not enough to keep the industries running." I've been one of those people. Canon clearly shows us a thriving wizard society and economy with lots of industry, retail, entertainment, Qudditch teams, and a bureaucracy seemingly worthy of the European Union in Brussels. I think 20,000 is marginal, and 5,000 to 6,000 out of the question, to support that. I've argued elsewhere against comparing 5000-6000 to a small town. The idea of more schools [you would say campuses] sure would make things easier. Then the size of wizard society wouldn't be nailed to the student census at Hogwarts. I would have found other schools altogether easier to believe, but JKR says no. I think that has to include other branches called Hogwarts. What it really means is that JKR did not work things out as thoroughly as we've heard. Grey Wolf:"Grey Wolf, who'd like to know what he can call "jferer", since this screen name is somewhat impersonal." Sorry. Thanks for the debate, Jim Ferer From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Fri Aug 30 11:39:48 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 11:39:48 -0000 Subject: Twenty 20 Twenty - Always 20 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43367 bboy_mn wrote: > Let's examine some 20's (I'm working from memory here so cut me some > slack.) > > 20 Brooms- > > Apparently, most of you never went to a poor small town school. In an > hour of 'Intro to Broom Flying', 40 to 60 kids could have had a go at > the brooms. Twenty step up and try it, they step back, and 20 more > step up to try it, etc.... Sixty kids in an hour, that's 20 minutes > per group of 20. Twenty brooms does not equal 20 students. Apparently Harry doesn't attend such school either. Hooch speaks to the students and says: "*Everyone* stand by a broomstick" (emphasis mine). So everyone had a broomstick to use inmediately, no need to wait. And a flying lesson is not something that you can leave unatended: Hooch had to be there continously, so there weren't other students someplace else. Besides, It is also mentioned that "the gryffindors" went to class and that "the Slyhterins" were already there. There is no mention of divided groups. > 20 Ear Muffs in Herbology- > > Isn't it a bit odd that 20 is just the right number for Slytherins > plus Gryffindors, and it just the right number for Hufflepuffs plus > Gryffindors? Seems like very exactly match class sizes. Apparently, > no chance that there could be one more or less Hufflepuff than > Slytherin. I can buy that the groups are around 10 in number (I could go up to 12 or down to 7, maybe) but the fact is that there are 10 Gryffindors that we know of (although we cannot discount maybe one or two girls more), and that the sums of Gryffindor and Hufflepuff/Sltherin add up 20, by canon. Giving slack, maybe a little more or less: give or take 10%. However, for the 1000 figure to be correct you'd need 35 students per house and year. That's NOT something that you can brush of by saying "Harry only calculated the number of broomsticks/ear muffs, didn't really count them. There is a big difference between 20 and 70. > So what is to say, there aren't another 20 Hufflepuff/Gryffindors in > the next greenhouse. Pro.Sprout gets Harry & friends started with the > Mandrakes, then goes to the next greenhouse and gets the next 20 > started, then goes back to check on the first 20. Let's go to canon for this one: the mandrakes are in the greenhouse three, with the other dangerous plants, which implies tht other greenhouses *don't* have such dangerous especimens. Also, the class they needed earmuffs for, as you pointed out, involves a very dangerous plant that can kill instantly if you're not very careful. There is just no way Sprout is going to leave the students unsupervised while they handle the mandrakes (especially not in their first day). Besides, as jferer pointed out, if there is little canon that points towards the idea of multiple campuses, there is even less to point towards multiple groups idea. > General Alternative Theory - Or classes could be broken into > sections- > > Transfigurations (illustration only) > 10:00am Gryffindor - 3rd yr - section A > 11:00am Gryffindor - 3rd yr - section B > > DADA > 2:00pm Tuesday - Gryffindor - 3rd yr - section A > 2:00pm Wednesday - Gryffindor - 3rd yr - section B > > Someone tried to shoot down this theory, indirectly, by saying that > teachers would have to teach something like 13 hours a day. I doubt > that they can back that up with numbers. If Snape teaches 3 hours in > the morning, and three hours in the afternoon, that's enough for 15 > double potions classes per week. Two double classes per grade with > time left over. DADA to my knowledge is one class per week. So the > DADA teacher could teach 30 classes a week (3hrs morning, 3hrs > afternoon, 5 days, total 30hrs). Let's take a look at the maths, shall we? You suggest two groups for each house. That's 7*4*2 = 56 groups. Potions clases are double, so that's 28 groups for Snape to teach. 4 hours/week for each group, 112 hours/week. You suggest 6 hour/day, that is, 30 hours/week. It doesn't stick. As things stand, he hardly has time for just two groups/year. It gets worse, though: A week has 168 hours. If we consider that on Sundays there are no classes, and that sleep takes, let say 6 hours/day (36 hours), plus lets say 1 hour/day for eating, washing and other things, 6 hours/week: 66 hours less due to living time. That leaves Snape with a grand total of free time of -10 hors/week. It doesn't stick, either. > Conclusion, I think JKR has seized on 20 as a not too big, not too > small, just right number as a literary construct. I'm guessing if > Harry goes to buy new glasses, he will have 20 styles to choose from. > If he goes into a cafe, there will be 20 things on the menu. If he > goes for a walk it will take about 20 minutes. If he goes into > Fortescue's, he will be able to choose between 20 flavors of ice > cream. If he walks into a room of people, it will have about 20 > people in it. Everything seems to be in units of 20. > > Twenty is a nice easy middle of the road, not too big, not too small > number that make for smooth easy writing. I don't think it's a > statement of absolute quantity. Frequently, you will find that it is > not 20 ear muffs but ABOUT 20 ear muffs which is just a quick glance > guess by Harry. > > That's my story and I'm sticking to it. > > bboy_mn About 20 is a good estimation. Nobody thinks there are "about" 20 when there are 70 earmuffs piled, which is what the 1000 figure implies. While it is true that it might be an aproximate number, it's doesn't allow that much of slack to explain the big difference > So, a typical size of 1,000, in my book, could be anything from 600 > to 1400. Since it appear that even if there are a lot of unseen > students,Harry year and perhaps the school in general is on the lower > end of the typical size. I think that 40% fluctuance is a bit too much for common demographics, but let's say its true. As I've said in a previous post (#43357), what can be deduced from the books is 280 students. Like in the number of earmuffs, even if we try to increase the number to try reconcile it with JKR's 1000 student statement, but we'd have to more than duplicate it to simply get close to your minimun number. That's too much slack to ask for, at least in my opinion. > Let's not forget all those unused classrooms, and unused corridors > which implies a whole floor of one wing. It appears to me that a > significant portion of Hogwarts is unused. Which seems to also imply > lower than typical enrollment. > > That's my story and I'm STILL sticking to it. > > bboy_mn You can, of course, stick to it, but I don't think the theory really stands. Not that it's too important, since this is a typical case were we have to bend canon quite a bit to have it make sense. Hope that helps, Grey Wolf From jferer at yahoo.com Fri Aug 30 11:57:17 2002 From: jferer at yahoo.com (jferer) Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 11:57:17 -0000 Subject: Dirty!Harry and Stoned!Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43368 bboy_mn, speaking about Harry's desire for revenge and his actions in the Shrieking Shack:"...in which his hatred and anger toward Sirius could build. Then he is confronted by a 'heat of the battle' situation. Harry and friends are being held at wand point by Sirius, Sirius has just attack and broken the leg of his best friend (Ron), he appears to have already made two attempts on Harry's life, and I'm sure Harry assumes that he and his friends are in mortal peril; I would say emtions (fear, anger, hate) are running high in the moment before Harry physically attacks Sirus. On the other hand, the story about Wormtail came about in a long somewhat convoluted conversation. So there wasn't the 'heat of the battle' emotions, he didn't have month for the anger to fester, and in saving Sirius, he has already chosen the higher moral ground." You're touching on something extraordinary about Harry: We've seen over and over how he's the "man of action," whose instincts (with preparation from Hermione) lead him right and save him time and time again; and his unwavering moral compass. He just can't be bad, it seems. Don't worry about him sneaking to Hogsmeade or hanging on to the Marauder's Map; it will be a poor world when youngsters bending the rules here and there are "immoral." That's why I'm more tolerant of the twins. Is this clarity part of Harry's gift/curse as a hero? I believe it is. Will his humanity cause him to hesitate at the wrong moment? I hope not. From matt at dawdy.com Fri Aug 30 13:18:39 2002 From: matt at dawdy.com (mdawdy99) Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 13:18:39 -0000 Subject: Dirty!Harry and Stoned!Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43369 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "dicentra63" wrote: > father would have done, but why didn't his rage turn to Pettigrew? > Why don't we see Harry himself killing him, or at least pointing a > wand at him and trying to get up the nerve to do it? I'll have to > read Shrieking Shack again for clues, but I really don't remember > Harry having any epiphany apart from realizing that Sirius is innocent. I think that you are missing a big part of a young boy's personality, namely, bravado. Boys talk very big (actually, most people do) about what THEY would do in a certain situation. Then when actually IN the situation, things don't seem quite like their fantasy. In our fantasies, WE are the only ones who matter. Other people are seldom involved in any key part besides reacting to our actions. In our fantasies, we don't envision other details about a scene, nor do we always evaluate the consequences. I believe that Harry, when confronted with a person who (whom? my grammar real bad) he DID hate, and actually had reason to kill, he finally realized what killing actually meant (at least partially -- he'd learn more in GoF, and I'm afraid he'll have to keep learning more and more about killing and the effects on the living in the following books.) Matt From abigailnus at yahoo.com Fri Aug 30 13:55:08 2002 From: abigailnus at yahoo.com (abigailnus) Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 13:55:08 -0000 Subject: Twins, Toons, Humor and Instinct In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43370 Right, well, first of all it seems obvious that I have lodged my foot so firmly in my mouth that it is a wonder I can still walk. Let me try to fix that without doing any further damage. When I characterised this thread as tedious, I truly only meant to say that I personally found it tedious, but it has been pointed out to me that people might take that to mean that I felt that anyone who didn't find the thread tedious was wrong or stupid. In my defense I can only say that I never for a moment thought that anyone would care what I personally felt about a subject if they thought otherwise, but it seems that some people did. If anyone on the group was hurt by my words or felt uncomfortable contributing to the thread because of them, I offer my most heartfelt apologies. I hope Elkins doesn't mind, but I'm going to move the pieces of her post around a bit, and start with the ending: > But I just don't know what to do about that, honestly. I really > don't. I don't get it at all. Why must characters be perfect to be > liked? Why must people feel compelled to defend an action *morally* > just because they thought that it was funny? Can't we acknowledge > that actions can still be funny even if they are not good actions? > After all, sometimes things that are downright *evil* can be funny > (especially to me, as I have a very black sense of humour). Can't > people still enjoy characters even if they have been portrayed > with some negative dimensions? Cindy already wrote some very interesting stuff about why the group tends to take the characterisation of F&G as bullies so personally, and in general, I agree with her. I had the exact same experience when Elkins first confronted me with the less pleasant aspects of the twins' behaviour, and I too wondered what the fact that I didn't spot those aspects myself said about me. However, I think the problem lies even deeper, and I think Elkins touched on it when she talked about why we like and dislike characters in another message: >Some time ago -- quite a long time ago now, in fact -- I wrote a post in which I asked people what precisely they meant when they said that they "liked" a character. I came to the conclusion that there are a number of different things that people can mean by that. Sometimes, we mean that we simply enjoy reading about them. Sometimes we mean that we appreciate the narrative function that they fulfill. We can like characters because we identify with them -- they remind us of ourselves -- or because we associate them with other people we have known and loved. Or, we can like them because we think that we would probably enjoy their company in real life. One of the things that I hoped to point out in that message was that often, when we talk about "liking" or "disliking" a character, we are actually evaluating them by the same criteria that we apply to real people in real life -- and that if moral virtue is among those criteria at all, it is usually pretty far down on the list. > See, I don't think the problem is whether we like or dislike a character, but whether JKR does, or rather whether she approves of that character's actions. I think the main problem plaguing most of the F&G defenders out there is not the fact that they find F&G's antics funny, but that JKR seems to. It is an author's job to pass moral judgement on the characters that he or she writes, to indicate to the readers in means of varying subtlety whether or not this character is doing a good thing or a bad thing. (There are works of fiction in which it is acceptable for a character to wallow, uncriticised, in its own depravity, but they tend to be more along the lines of American Psycho or Fight Club.) In the Harry Potter books, there are several ways in which Rowling indicates to us her criticism of a character's actions. The most obvious one is to have Harry disapprove of said behaviour, another is to describe the character as unpleasant or disliked or physically unappealing, and a third is simply karma - bad things happen to bad people. Now, I'm not suggesting that at every turn in the Harry Potter books, the bad are punished and the good are rewarded, because this is quite simply not the case. What I am saying is that JKR very clearly indicates to us who the good guys and the bad guys are. I like Snape, and I don't think I'm alone in that. I like him in spite of the fact that I *know* that he is a bully, and I know that being a bully is hardly the worst thing about him. Now, I hope that JKR likes Snape as well because she created him and like a good mother she should love all her children, even Voldemort. But also like a good mother, she should point out his faults, if not to him (he is just a fictional character, after all) then to her readers. And she does - Harry criticizes Snape non-stop, he is described as unpleasant and unattractive, and his desires are usually frustrated. But what about people that Harry does like? Does this mean that JKR never criticizes them? Not so. Take Hagrid, whose drinking is displayed rather unpleasantly several times and shown to have negative results (such as being tricked into revealing how to pass Fluffy). Take Sirius, whose actions during PoA are heavily criticized by Dumbledore, and who finds himself chastised by a 13 year old boy for his vengeful impulse to kill the man who wronged him. Or, for that matter, take the house-elf liberation front, which is treated throughout GoF as a joke. If Harry has any feelings about the state of house-elves, it is that their enslavement is probably not a terrible thing, and yet can there be any doubt that JKR disapproves of it? She finds a thousand small ways of showing just how wrong it is without ever convincing Harry of it. And yet, Fred and George are never criticized by the narrative. They are hardly ever punished severely for their actions. When their mother criticizes them, it is because she's concerned that they won't be able to hold down a job and support themselves. When their father gets angry at them for the TTT incident, they are not punished. Harry likes them and rarely passes any criticism of them. They are described in favourable terms. The only people who speak ill of them are the already acknowledged bad guys such as Draco. Only once is any criticism of their characters leveled at them - when Ron calls them "obssessed with making money". But rather than show that obssession leading to negative results, it is rewarded at the end of the book when Harry gives the twins 1000 galleons. I don't think there's any escaping it. JKR approves of the twins and what they do, and suggesting that they are bullies creates a problem for the reading community. It's not just that we aren't nice people if we accept that the twins are bullies, it's that JKR isn't either. The way I see it, there have been several attempts to resolve this problem. 1. "Subversive" Fred & George - hardly a resolution, this approach suggests that JKR simply isn't aware that she's written bullying characters as completely sympathetic. I don't know about the rest of you, but I think that's just sad. 2. The Apologists - why doesn't JKR criticize the twins for being bullies? Because they aren't bullies! This approach has varying levels of success, and there are some cases, such TTT and the train stomp, where it doesn't work no matter what you do. 3. Their Day Will Come - JKR is actually going to give the twins their comeuppance in a future book. Personally, I find the idea that, having set up F&G as good guys for four or more books (and it's not just that they are good guys. Ron is a good guy, so are Percy and Sirius, but there are enough suggestions made about each of them to make us worry. That just hasn't happened as far as the twins are concerned), JKR would pull the carpet under us by branding them bad guys rather mean-spirited. It's not like with Crouch!Moody, who is set up as a good guy until new information about him is revealed. This approach suggests that no new information will be revealed about the twins except for a change in JKR's attitude towards them. In other words, she would be saying to her audience "You know those characters that, through numerous textual clues, I have led you to believe are good guys? Psych!" and thus criticizing her entire readership's moral standards for not working it out sooner. One way this might work, however, is if the twins do something so terrible that Harry, and with him the readers, are forced to rethink their actions since the twins were first introduced. It has been suggested that the twins will perform this generation's prank gone array. I have problems with that. I can't quite accept that the twins can carry on their cardboard shoulders the burden of being the generational parallels of James Potter and Sirius Black (and I will persist in my claim that the twins have no character depth whatsoever until someone points out a way of telling them apart.) However, Elkins made some interesting points about the twins inheriting the role of moralle-raisers by using the Marauder's Map, so I guess it might be fair to suggest that they can inherit the role of the doomed pranksters as well. 4. Who Framed Fred and George? - this is Dicentra's party, and I think she's explained it much better then I ever could. 5. But it's all a joke, man! - This is my party, although I think someone else could explain it better anyway. I've ruffled some feathers by saying that we are not "meant" to look too deeply into the twins' actions in humorous scenes. This entire post is based on the assumption that I am correctly reading JKR's cues by saying that she doesn't disapprove of the twins. I think it's also a fair reading of the cues to say that most of the twins' scenes, including the most difficult ones to explain - TTT and the train stomp - are meant at least in part to be comic relief (can I just say as an aside that I love the idea of TTT being a parallel to the QWC incident?). My original suggestion was that when she wrote these scenes, the main rationale that was going through JKR's head was "this is funny". Maybe later she added layers of meaning and foreshadowing, but her original intention was to write a comic aside. There's a lot to say against this view, and I certainly can't prove it without picking JKR's brains. The main problem, I suppose, would be the question of whether we should care about authorial intent, and I suspect that for many of the people who have sounded off on this thread the answer is no, but inasmuch as I am trying to excuse the lack of condemnation for F&G's bullying, I think it's as good an answer as any. Each of these approaches have their problems, and I don't think any of them truly resolve the dissonance between the twins' actions and JKR's reactions to them. I think we're just going to have to wait and see what she does with them. A few odds and ends: > Abigail wrote: > > > Fred and George Weasly, as the chief suppliers of comic relief in > > the books, tend to be responsible for most of these actions, but I > > find it hard to believe that we are meant to read any insight from > > this into their character. > > But a good deal of the rest of your message was then taken up with > explaining, in quite a lot of detail, exactly what *you* think about > Fred and George! You speculated as to their motivations, and you > analyzed their relationship with Percy, their feelings towards > Cedric, and their feelings towards Draco Malfoy. Huh, I swear that when I was composing that message I planned to put a divider in it somewhere saying "this is why I don't think this is a fair question to ask, but if it is then I still think the anwer is no because:" but I guess I didn't. > No, of course not. I rather imagine that what you did was to > extrapolate it from the gestalt impression that you have received of > the character of the twins from the sum of all of their canonical > appearances over the course of four novels -- very many of which > are indeed, as you yourself have pointed out, written as comedy. > > Which is precisely what I did. So I'm having a hard time > understanding in what way my interpretation is "over-analyzing," > while your own (I assume) is not. What makes your reading less > analytical than mine? > > What is bothering me a bit here, I think, is what I am perceiving as > a decided tendency for people to believe that their own readings are > somehow more genuine -- more honest, more spontaneous, more natural, > more unself-conscious, more authorially sanctioned, more canonically > supported -- than those of people who happen to have reached > different conclusions from precisely the same canonical evidence, or > than those of people who happen to have had somewhat different > emotional responses to the same things. You're probably right there. I did assume that a reading of the twins as bullies came from an analysis of the text because my original reaction to them was to laugh out loud. I'm sorry, but in my defense it does seem that a reading of the twins as funny is the more common reaction. I guess I shouldn't have assumed that the reaction applies to everyone. Abigail From dicentra at xmission.com Fri Aug 30 15:12:17 2002 From: dicentra at xmission.com (dicentra63) Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 15:12:17 -0000 Subject: Dirty!Harry and Stoned!Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43371 Elkins: by intervening to insist upon the recognition of a higher moral code than "he deserves it," Harry is acting as an agent of transformative and redemptive moral change, one which can serve to heal both the wounds of injustice and the wounds of the past. Dicentra: As true as all this is, it seems so incongruous that Harry was on the verge of killing Sirius only an hour or so earlier. So what changed? What persuaded Harry within that short time to recognize this higher moral code? bboy: I'm pretty sure you answered your own question. Harry had a long time in which his hatred and anger toward Sirius could build. On the other hand, the story about Wormtail came about in a long somewhat convoluted conversation. So there wasn't the 'heat of the battle' emotions, he didn't have month for the anger to fester, and in saving Sirius, he has already chosen the higher moral ground. Dicentra: OK. I went back and read Shrieking Shack again last night, and found something rather interesting. I can buy the argument that Harry didn't turn his wand on Pettigrew because the heat of the moment had dissipated. But I found something even more interesting. Pettigrew has been revealed, and now he's trying to find an ally: "Pettigrew knelt, trembling uncontrollably, and turned his head slowly toward Harry. "'Harry ... Harry ... you look just like your father ... just like him. ...' [Sirius rebukes him in all caps.] "'Harry,' whispered Pettigrew, shuffling toward him, hands outstretched. 'Harry, James wouldn't have wanted me killed.... James would have understood, Harry ... he would have shown me mercy....'" The next time Harry speaks is when he jumps in front of Pettigrew to save him, on the next page. When he says he doesn't think his father would have wanted Sirius and Remus to become killers. It would appear that *Peter* is the one who suggests to Harry what the higher moral code is. Why would that hold any water for Harry? Why would Peter's words persuade him that his father wouldn't have wanted him killed? The narrator doesn't look into Harry's head during this time, so there's no clue there. And not only that, as bboy pointed out, the "he deserves it" sentiment isn't actually gone, it's just been redirected at Azkaban instead of death, which if you ask me is worse than death (and in many ways equals death, just more slowly). Has Harry actually chosen a higher moral code or has he just decided to protect his parents' friends -- and to hell with the real traitor? Oh, and BTW, for those of you fretting about how Sirius let Snape's head scrape on the tunnel's roof, I noticed this: "[Snape] clicked his fingers, and the ends of the cords that bound Lupin flew to his hands. 'I'll drag the werewolf. Perhaps the dementors will have a kiss for him too --'" In my book, dragging a conscious man's body across bare, stony ground is much worse than a few scrapes on the head of an unconscious man. --Dicentra, Sirius apologist From tabouli at unite.com.au Fri Aug 30 15:23:31 2002 From: tabouli at unite.com.au (Tabouli) Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2002 01:23:31 +1000 Subject: A Map of very little Brain? Message-ID: <002401c25039$33c1ebe0$032032d2@price> No: HPFGUIDX 43372 Eloise quoting Elkins: >> So the implication to my mind is that insulting Snape *is* in some >> sense a part of the Map's function. > >Which is highly likely, as I'm sure it was rigged in case Snape ever found it in his snoopings.< Ahaaa. Map musings! Nothing like a few Map musings. The more I think about that Map, the more I wonder about the level of magic required to develop it. I suppose the Gryffindor inventors of the current Hogwarts generation are Fred and George, who'd rather concoct magic tricks than incredibly useful magical devices, but I still struggle to see the Trio inventing something like that in their next year at Hogwarts. Sure, Hermione's good at remembering and executing obscure useful spells she's read about, but they really don't seem to be into *making* things. However. The more I think about this Map, the more questions I think of. Harry identifies the Map as of the same category of object as Riddle's diary, that is, an object that thinks for itself. As Elkins said, it does seem to be semi-sentient: it told Harry how to get into the statue, appears to be able to tell who the significant people are for the person using it (hence Harry turns up when he is given the Map where he wasn't on it before), and when prodded by Snape it clearly recognises him and is preprogrammed to insult him. All very interesting, especially when you consider that JKR never *really* resolves for the Map the warning Mrs Weasley gave Ginny, namely where *does* the Map keep its brain?? OK, so our comparison object is Riddle's diary, right? What Tom did was preserve his 16yo self in the pages of the diary, so that "one day, with luck (he) would be able to lead another in (his) footsteps". Sounds fairly similar to what the Marauders could have done, doesn't it? In the absence of any further information, we could assume that what *they* have done is preserve something of *their* 15yo selves in the Map so that one day, with luck, *they* could lead another generation of rulebreakers into mischief. The Diary found its way to the vulnerable Ginny, the Map found its way to vulnerable (in the sense of being miserable about being forbidden from going to Hogsmeade) Harry. Of course, we know exactly how this happened in both cases. Lucius happened to see an opportunity to give Arthus Weasley a comeuppance, and slipped the diary in Ginny's textbook. Fred and George happened to find it in Filch's extensive collection of confiscated objects and happened to decide to donate it to Harry. Nothing to do with the objects themselves, right? Or was it? I'm suspicious, you know. There's plenty of evidence that the pet chooses the wizard: Crookshanks and Hermione, Scabbers and Ron, even (for the TOADKEEPERs among us) Trevor and Neville, perhaps. Just how animate are intelligent magical objects? Could they, like Tolkien's ring, have some say in their fate? Can they rig things so that they go to the person for whom they're destined? What were the real chances that Lucius would find Arthur Weasley and Ginny, post buying textbooks, shopping on the same day, and get the opportunity to slip her the Diary? What were the real chances of Fred and George stumbling on so helpful an object in Filch's no doubt huge filing cabinet collection, especially when it looked like an old piece of parchment (compared with, I imagine, a *host* of more interesting looking things Filch might have taken from erring students). And conveniently deciding that despite its extreme usefulness in their rulebreaking pastimes, that they would give it to Harry? Let's look at the Diary some more and think about the implications. Tom Riddle instilled himself into the Diary and fed on Ginny's secrets to grow strong enough to emerge from the Diary. Interesting. What if Voldemort had been killed before he got the chance? Would the spell have been broken, and the Diary emptied? Or would there still have been a 16yo Riddle waiting to be unleashed? Does the keeper of the object's brain, so to speak, have to be alive for the object to stay intelligent? Then let's look at the Map. Now, it's entirely likely that its different function means this comparison is tenuous, but it's interesting, isn't it? There were four manufacturers, of which one (James) is now dead. One of the keeper brains is out of action. Does this mean that the Map is only working at 75% of optimum capacity? Or that it steered itself deliberately towards James' son, whose input can "recharge" it? We should also remember the insulting Snape function. This, I think, is evidence that the 15yo Marauders have indeed stored their 15yo selves in there. And, given that Mr Prongs contributed to the insulting of Snape: > 'Mr Prongs agrees with Mr Moony, and would like to add that Professor Snape is an ugly git' ...suggests that the storage of a younger self in an intelligent magical object can indeed outlive the death of the person whose self is in it (which suggests that Tom Riddle might indeed have been able to resurrect himself had Voldemort died before Ginny rejuvenated himself), unless, of course, the other three living Marauders' magic contributions are maintaining 15yo James. In which case, might there be some way for Harry to access his 15yo father through the Map, in the same way Snape did (and Ginny did Tom)? Could he, if he thought of it, talk to James Potter, Quidditch star and charismatic star student if he hit the Map with his wand and said "Harry Potter, son of your manufacturer James, commands that he come out and have a father to son talk!" ? Hmmm... You see, whenever I read this scene (c/o Elkins' post): *** As though an invisible hand was writing upon it, words appeared on the smooth surface of the map. "'Mr Moony presents his compliments to Professor Snape, and begs him to keep his abnormally large nose out of other people's business' Snape froze. Harry stared, dumbstruck, at the message. But the map didn't stop there. More writing was appearing beneath the first. "'Mr Prongs agrees with Mr Moony, and would like to add that Professor Snape is an ugly git' It would have been very funny if the situation hadn't been so serious. And there was more... "'Mr Padfoot would like to register his astonishment that an idiot like that ever became a Professor.' Harry closed his eyes in horror. When he'd opened them, the map had had its last word. "'Mr Wormtail bids Professor Snape good day, and advises him to wash his hair, the slimeball.'" *** ...I can't help wondering where those insults are coming from. Was it specifically programmed for Snape? Clearly it can recognise people: it recognised Harry, it recognised Snape, and understood what he said to it. And connected him with who he was at the age of 15. It reveals everyone's true nature - it identified Scabbers as Peter, exposed the Polyjuiced Barty-Moody. That is indeed an intelligent magic object. If it had been McGonagall who demanded that it reveal its secrets, would the stored Marauders have recognised and insulted her too? What if it had been Dumbledore? *Is* it the stored 15yo Marauders living in the Map who independently came up with the insults? If so, were those insults *really* in character for their respective insulters, even in their mid-teens? *Would* Lupin have told 15yo Snape to keep his abnormally large nose out of other people's business at 15? Would James Potter have called Snape an ugly git? Would 15yo Sirius really have described the (undoubtedly talented, at least at Potions) Snape as an idiot who could never have become a Professor? Would 15yo Wormtail *really* have been brave enough to sneer at Snape's greasy hair and patronisingly suggest he wash it under Sirius and James' protection? Er, it's not really much credit to them if so. Even at 15. OK, so maybe the insults are just an automatic function. Maybe the Marauders snickered over it and programmed in all the schoolboy insults they could think of, and set it to "random assignment" to decide which of them said what. Maybe they chose one each and set it so that it would use them on Snape specifically, or any prying person in general. Maybe Sirius thought up all of them and assigned them one each. But I still want to know where they came from. Where the insulting voice of the Map keeps its brain. I also wonder other things about it - if it can embody the memory of four 15yo schoolboys, does it also "remember" anything in the way the Diary did? Could it show "movies" of long ago events on the Hogwarts grounds? Could Harry enter it the way he entered the Diary, and find out some crucial truths about what happened in his father's day? What exactly can it do? There's plenty more musing to be done on this Map, I say. It is so incredibly useful that if I were Dumbledore, I'd have a "sentry" or someone continually keeping an eye on it, have an in-depth discussion with Lupin and Sirius about everything it can do, and get a skilled wizard to study what else it might be able to do... Tabouli. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From cindysphynx at comcast.net Fri Aug 30 15:40:45 2002 From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (cindysphynx) Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 15:40:45 -0000 Subject: TBAY: Canon College: DEs and Aurors 101 (WAS "Despiadado" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43373 Cindy shifts uncomfortably in her child-size wooden desk, fumbling to balance her tower of Harry Potter books stacked in the center of it. She places one hand on the books and tilts the desk top upward an inch ?- just enough to slip a chubby finger inside and retrieve a pencil nub with a chewed eraser. Oh, the facilities at Canon College are humble indeed. Bad lighting, unpadded seats, faulty air-conditioning, bad acoustics. But it has some of the best canon instruction anywhere, and Cindy wants to learn from the *best.* Standing before the class is Professor Eileen Lucky-Kari, head of the college's Villains and SYCOPHANTs department. She is about to administer an open book oral exam on Death Eaters and Aurors, having already warned that she would be grading on a strict curve. Cindy steals a glance at the other students ?- her competition, the last obstacles standing between her and her Masters in Banging. There is Elkins, a pile of dictionaries and encyclopedias on the floor near her feet, an enormous feather quill pinched in one hand. On her other side is Avery, a glint of sweat visible on his upper lip, his desktop bare of books and supplies. This could be tricky, Cindy thinks. Avery shouldn't be a problem on this exam because he never says anything. Elkins, though. Elkins is probably going to set the curve. That would leave Cindy in the middle with a "B," not nearly good enough. She hunches her shoulders as a trickle of sweat dribbles down the middle of her back. "All right, class" Eileen says evenly. "Let's begin the exam. First question: how is an auror's killing someone in a magical shoot-out evil? Anyone? Anyone at all, any--" Elkins' hand shoots into the air, her elbow brushing her bottle of ink, which tipped dangerously before righting itself. "It isn't, very. Or at least it's a highly justifiable evil. What Crouch authorized his aurors to do was not to kill in self-defense. It was not to kill in bloody magical shoot-outs. It was not to use lethal force when such was necessary to provide immediate protection to the innocent. And it was not to kill when capture was impossible. What Crouch authorized his aurors to do was to kill *rather* than to capture. In other words, they were authorized to kill people who could instead have been apprehended." Elkins glances at Cindy, nodded vigorously, and leans back in her chair, her arms folded across her chest. Eileen's eyes sweep the room, resting on Cindy. "Anything to say to that?" Cindy swallows, licking her parched lips. "Well. Uh. I'm not so sure about that. I . . . I was doing some reading about the use of deadly force in this *enormous* criminal procedure law textbook that I carry around. And there are certain *rules* about when cops can use deadly force. They can use deadly force in defense of themselves or in defense of others, of course, like Elkins says. "But things get murky when we get to the subject of fleeing suspects. See, cops aren't normally allowed to shoot a suspect in the back when the suspect is trying to run away. Not normally. But they *can* shoot suspects in the back in one situation that might be pertinent here ? when the suspect poses a danger if allowed to escape. I think there are limitations on this, of course. Like cops can only do this for suspects who commit a serious crime in the presence of the cop, maybe. I think there are other limitations, like there has to be an attempt to apprehend and a warning or something. That's basically how I think it works in the muggle world. In the U.S. About 15 years ago when I last read that law textbook. Unless something has changed, anyway. "Now, it is entirely possible that, before Crouch authorized the use of the Unforgiveables, the wizarding rules didn't allow aurors to shoot suspects in the back at all. Aurors *had* to try to hit them with some spell and capture them if they were trying to flee. Maybe Crouch realized that this wasn't working. Maybe a few of the very worst DEs had escaped and carried *crucial* and damaging information straight back to Voldemort, for instance. So maybe, just maybe, Crouch was only expanding the use of AK in the case of dangerous fleeing suspects to something like what I think might exist in the muggle world. I mean, we don't know what the rules were before Crouch Sr. changed them, so this is possible, right?" Elkins flings her hand into the air, rising slightly in her seat. "No, I think Crouch Sr. authorized Aurors to kill anyone they damn well felt like, with little or no accountability to anyone for their actions." Cindy winces, screwing up her courage to elaborate. "Well, maybe not. If the wizarding world adopted the appropriate safeguards and procedures, it is entirely possible that they adopted a system that was a reasonable balance of the interests of the state and the suspect in the Case Of The Fleeing Wizard. "After all, we don't know that there would be no accountability if an Auror didn't follow established procedure and killed on sight or something. As Elkins said, the wizarding world does have a justice system, and there's no reason to think Aurors had immunity for criminal action if they abused their authority according to whatever procedural requirements were established." Eileen beams at her students, scratching two check marks in her notebook. Looking up, she says, "I'm beginning to suspect that Crouch authorized the use of the Unforgiveable curses on people already taken into custody." Elkins raises her hand again, glancing quickly at Cindy as it slices through the air. "That's what I think, too. Or, for that matter, even on people who in the end were *never* taken into custody. That was *precisely* how I interpreted Sirius' words in 'Padfoot Returns.' Crouch authorized his aurors to use torture and mind- control, and he authorized them to use these techniques even against people who had never been convicted (or even necessarily accused) of any crime. Hence, 'descended to the level of the Death Eaters.' Again, very reassuring." Cindy, fighting a sudden shortness of breath, nods. "Yeah. Me too." Avery nods as well, his fingers trembling as he struggles to unwrap a stick of gum. Eileen bends over and makes three check marks in her notebook. "Wait a minute!" Elkins shrieks. "They get credit for a 'Me, too' and a head nod? What kind of exam *is* this, anyway?" "All right, now for a little change of pace," Eileen announces, ignoring Elkins' outburst. "For extra credit, explain the reference to 'Alexandr Solzhenitsyn' in this sentence: 'The moment Sirius began to talk about Crouch Sr., I went all Alexandr Solzhenitsyn. Anyone? Anyone?" There is an awkward silence, broken by Avery's croaky voice. "He's a Russian novelist and historian, who was awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature for 1970 and was exiled from the Soviet Union in 1974. I mean, DUH!" "Excellent Avery!" Eileen exclaims, her eyes wide in surprise and admiration. As she averts her eyes and makes dozens of check marks in her notebook, Avery sticks out his tongue in Elkins' general direction. Eileen presses ahead. "Where in canon do we see the Aurors overstepping their bounds?" There is an awkward silence as Elkins glares at her classmates. When she speaks, her voice is uncharacteristically flat. "An excellent question. Sirius is clearly no fan of the aurors, but even he acknowledges that Moody was all right. Moody was the Good Auror. Didn't kill if he could avoid it. Never descended to the level of the Death Eaters. So who *were* those other aurors? Who were those guys who were running around killing suspects rather than bothering to arrest them, practicing their Unforgivables on people who had never even stood trial? Could their zeal have made them 'very popular?'" "Oh, I don't know." Cindy pops a piece of Avery's gum into her mouth, chews for a moment, shifts it into her cheek, and answers in a muffled voice. "There are lots of ways aurors could become popular. Maybe Frank demonstrated bravery and saved someone's life. Maybe he was restrained like Moody. Maybe he was just charismatic or dealt with the press a lot. But if Dumbledore liked Frank, that suggests that Frank wasn't all bad." Eileen smiles, accepting a stick of gum Avery extends to her. "What about Wilkes?" "Was Wilkes killed after he was apprehended?" Elkins blurts out. "As Eileen knows full well, I have been plugging for 'Wilkes dead at Frank Longbottom's hands' ever since my delurk -- " "Oh, sure," Cindy breaks in. "It's fine for Frank to kill Wilkes. I'll give you that one, if for no other reason other than the *Bang.* But that doesn't mean Frank didn't kill Wilkes for a really good reason. Like self defense, defense of others, or the Fleeing Wizard situation. "Besides, canon suggests that Rosier and Wilkes were *dangerous,* maybe even more dangerous than the other DEs Sirius names. Who does Sirius name first when he is ticking off DE names on his fingers? 'Rosier and Wilkes ? they were both killed by Aurors the year before Voldemort fell." "Hey!" Elkins cries. "That's *my* theory!" "Not only that," Cindy continues, opening her dog-eared copy of GoF, "there's the fact that we don't know *when* Crouch authorized the use of the Unforgivables. Wilkes was killed 'the year *before* Voldemort fell.' So Wilkes is killed in 1980. It's entirely possible that Wilkes *didn't* die at the hand of some overzealous Auror flush with his new powers. Wilkes might have died *before* the Crouch Sr. Unforgivables Authorization was established." "But ?" Elkins leaps from her seat. "The series is becoming more morally complex as it progresses, after all. And JKR *did* once work for Amnesty International." "Right," Cindy says easily, "which is all the more reason that there is *no way* JKR would write Dumbledore's reaction as sympathetic to Frank if Frank were the sort of auror who abused his authority on his way to achieving popularity." Eileen blows a large pink bubble. "All right, last question. Well, it's more of a confession, really. This is a bit out of character for me, but I simply have to get this off my chest. Don't tell any of the faculty, but I really, really *like* Barty Crouch Sr. I can't help it. You know why? He has a *redemption* scene. And I'm a sucker for redemption scenes. "In fact, one of my former students wrote a fabulous essay on the subject. Dave Witley wrote back in Message 38368: 'Crouch Sr's final attempts to reach Dumbledore are a textbook case of redemption. He has seen the error of his ways and strives to make restitution. He struggles against the bondage that his own actions have placed him in, and begins to break free.'" Eileen sniffs loudly, wiping the back of her hand across her eyes. "It's become truism here on the list that Real Wizards Don't Apologize. And yet, Crouch Sr., who seems to serve as the GoF personification of the Livian toughness espoused by this society, in the end says, 'It's my fault... it's all my fault..' "And I *love* him for it!," Eileen exclaims, weeping openly now. "Uh . . ." Cindy begins awkwardly. "You know, I can see that. At first glance, this does look like a situation where a wizard is actually apologizing, doesn't it? That would be almost unprecedented in canon, wouldn't it? It would make Crouch Sr. pretty darn special indeed. "But let's not forget something here. Crouch Sr. was *delirious* in that scene! He was raving mad and chewing the rug! He didn't know what he was saying! So if he was out of his mind, can we really be sure that this was a true, heartfelt redemption? Besides, this might have been a case where Crouch Sr. was just looking for a way to save his own hide. "But if you want to pine for Crouch Sr., we could try a "Comfort- Hurt" theory ? a feeling that you had better comfort Crouch Sr. before he *hurts* you. After all, power is the ultimate aphrodisiac. And, uh, don't take this the wrong way or anything, Professor, but we all know how much you like to be *hurt*." Eileen gapes at Cindy and again bends down over her notebook, her shoulders heaving. The sound of ripping paper could be heard over Eileen's sobs. "All right," Eileen announces. "The test is concluded and I am ready to hand out the final grades. Let's see. Cindy receives an 'A,' Avery receives a 'B,' and Elkins receives a Gentleman's 'C'. Class dismissed, and have a nice summer!" "WHAT?!?" Elkins sputters. "Cindy gets a higher mark for that ? for that *nonsense* about Crouch Sr.? It's *Hurt-Comfort,* not "Comfort- Hurt!,* for heaven's sake! And Avery gets a higher mark than me for . . . for . . . for *one* answer that didn't have anything to do with canon or DEs or Aurors and that *anyone* could look up on the Internet in about 10 seconds?" "No, Elkins," Eileen replied quietly, "Avery gets a 'B' for the gum." **************** Cindy **************** For an explanation of the acronyms and theories in this post, visit Hypothetic Alley at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/files/Admin20Files/hypoth eticalley.htm and Inish Alley at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/database? method=reportRows&tbl=13 From prefectmarcus at yahoo.com Fri Aug 30 16:10:09 2002 From: prefectmarcus at yahoo.com (prefectmarcus) Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 16:10:09 -0000 Subject: What Makes a Viable Population In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43374 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "jferer" wrote: > Marcus:"I am somewhat amused by assertions that 20,000 people do not > make a viable population. I spent my teenage years in a town of 7000. > We had a big factory, a great many smaller ones, ten blocks of a > thriving downtown, and a thriving shopping mall." > > You shouldn't be. Was everything that was sold or consumed in that > town made in that big factory? Were any of the stores in the mall > national chains? What car did your family drive, and where did it come > from? Your town, like all others, is one node in a vast > economic/social network that extends far beyond the town line. If it > had to survive all on its own, it would be a very different place and > life would be very different, too. > We disagree. Your small town does not a society make. How many cars do the wizards drive? Look at the goods bought and sold in Diagon Alley. How many require large centers of manufacture to create? Ollivander's wands? Since he makes them all, that rather points to a small population wouldn't you say? Looking at Diagon Alley, I don't see the equivalent of a Sears, JC Penney, Target, Walmart, Krogers, Marks and Spencers, etc. The only thing that comes close to a car dealership is Quality Quidditch Supplies with its one display broom in the window. They are almost all little shops run by the same people who make the goods sold. It is like a flea market. Some shops sell what they make (Ollivander's). Some shops sell on consignment from cottage industries (QQS). Magical society really looks like society from before the industrial revolution. There small villages of less than a hundred made do with what they had. You had a few people who travelled and traded, but most goods were all locally produced. Where in the books does it show any different? Marcus From crussell at arkansas.net Fri Aug 30 15:43:44 2002 From: crussell at arkansas.net (bugaloo37) Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 15:43:44 -0000 Subject: Dirty!Harry and Stoned!Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43375 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "dicentra63" wrote: > > Has Harry actually chosen a higher moral code or has he just decided > to protect his parents' friends -- and to hell with the real traitor? > I agree with you on this-in part. What is being shown here is respect being paid to Harry's father and to his father's friends- however, I believe it can still be seen as an example of higher ethics at work. In this instance, Harry is still placing the needs of others above his own. Granted, not much of a sacrifice is being made here-choosing between Azakaban and immediate death could be considered a win/win solution. IMO,however, it can be still be seen in light of Harry's other examples of bravery and sacrifice as a reflection of Harry's heroic nature- a nature which was also present in both of his parents- a fact of which we are constantly reminded. bugaloo37-a true blue Sirius fan From adatole at yahoo.com Fri Aug 30 16:59:36 2002 From: adatole at yahoo.com (Leon Adato) Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 12:59:36 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] A Map of very little Brain? In-Reply-To: <002401c25039$33c1ebe0$032032d2@price> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43376 In part, Tabouli said: ******************** OK, so our comparison object is Riddle's diary, right? What Tom did was preserve his 16yo self in the pages of the diary, so that "one day, with luck (he) would be able to lead another in (his) footsteps". Sounds fairly similar to what the Marauders could have done, doesn't it? In the absence of any further information, we could assume that what *they* have done is preserve something of *their* 15yo selves in the Map so that one day, with luck, *they* could lead another generation of rulebreakers into mischief. .... Nothing to do with the objects themselves, right? Or was it? .... Could they, like Tolkien's ring, have some say in their fate? Can they rig things so that they go to the person for whom they're destined? What were the real chances that Lucius would find Arthur Weasley and Ginny, .... What were the real chances of Fred and George stumbling on so helpful an object in Filch's no doubt huge filing cabinet collection, And conveniently deciding that despite its extreme usefulness in their rulebreaking pastimes, that they would give it to Harry? .... I can't help wondering where those insults are coming from. Was it specifically programmed for Snape? *************** And I counter: We have seen two implementations of "thought transferrence" so far - the riddle and the Penseive. I have to admit that I wonder, upon Dumbledore's death, if someone (Harry, of course) might not find one or more Penseive's, or a really huge Penseive, filled with the essence of Dumbledore. Not a ghost, not a smokey "shade", but yet another way for someone to communicate from beyond the grave. But I digress.... I believe that the diary is imbued in a similar way to the Penseive. Siphon off thoughts and place them into a recepticle. In the case of the diary, the thoughts will then take on a life of their own. Informing (in the case of the penseive) or reacting (in the case of the diary). The map is a different object. Much more a tool than a repository of thought. And my personal feeling is that it was imbued with functionality. That it also took on the *personality* of the inventors seems to be part of the imbuing process. Look at the Ford Anglia. I do not believe for a moment that Arthur Weasly, speaker of the great quote "never trust anything..." would unwittingly add a bring to his flying car. But it did express likes and dislikes, and eventually took on a life of its own. But is it the same as the diary? I don't think the map or the Anglia can/would/will ever "aspire" to be more than they are. The map will not seek to join with other maps, or to coax someone to burn down the library to avoid competition. The Anglia will not seek out other cars and foment revolution. They are what they are, and as long as they are well-treated they will be content. The diary (and, I think, the Penseive) would not remain static. They would (the diary did!) attempt to evolve, progress, and attain. The diary had a "brain". It showed thought and initiative to launch it beyond it's current status. While the Anglia acted independantly for its own self-preservation, it's still not the same. As for the map's taunting, I think that it would not insult Mad-Eye Moody, or even comment on his stunning hair style. It would have little to say to Draco Malfoy. It would have interesting comments reserved for Dumbledore, for McGonegal, and probably for Bertha Jorkins as well as Snape. It might even be able to take shots at dear old Lucius. Because those were people the Fab Four knew. Now how the map "knew" that Snape was a professor is a matter of debate. Didn't Snape announce it himself? And wouldn't the programmers be able to toss in "Moony expresses disbelief that Snape ever became a ________" where the blank could be filled in by whatever Snape himself said, or a generic "5th year", or "student", or "member of the human race". Think about it. Snape was brilliant. If he had become HB, wouldn't the map have been a great way to poke fun? And haven't we already seen that happen (a la "Humungous Bighead")? That Snape became professor before he "found" the map was probably an event beyond the imaginings of the Marauders. One final note: I believe Dumbledore already has the main "function" of the map in his office, somewhere. I can't believe, I refuse to believe that Mooney et al were the first to come up with this kind of functionality. I mean, come on! Anybody here have kids? This beats those stupid wrist-leash thingy's hands-down. It's even better than the Weasley's clock. I think Dumbledore knows where everyone is whenever he wants to, whether in a map in his head or on the wall. He doesn't show up at the right time by luck. Not by a longshot. OK, someone here wants me to actually do work. Gotta run. Hope this makes sense. Leon From jodel at aol.com Fri Aug 30 18:30:38 2002 From: jodel at aol.com (jodel at aol.com) Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 14:30:38 EDT Subject: Modest Proposeal/Scale of things Message-ID: <161.131f5d36.2aa113ce@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 43377 This is another wrinkle on the Scale of Things discussion, which seems to be trying to create a virtual headcount of the number of wizards in Britan. Actually there are a couple of small things on the subject which I thought I'd mention. First; in tying the probably number of adults in a community to the number of school-aged children (a good idea, btw) no one has mentioned that the ratio needs to be adjusted to allow for wizard's extended lifespans. There is a strong probability that this has resulted in there being anything up to twice as many adults to children as has been established in mundane world studies. Some factors to consider are; 1. Dumbledore at the age of 150 is regarded as old, but not yet frail from age. If Dumbeldore is a (physically) representitive example we might postulate that wizard lifespansd are roughly twice that of Muggles. (There is almost certainly an older discussion on wizarding lifespans somewhere in the archives. But it was before my time and I am only active through the Digest, so I will apologize for repeating anyone else's arguments without attributiuon.) 2. That the children presently attending Hogwarts do NOT appear to be maturing at a slower rate than their Muggle ccounerparts suggests that unless wizard's extended lifespans are due to a natural slowing of the aging process upon maturity this extention of lifespan may be artificial, dependent upon certain routine physical maintenance spells developed over the past 300-400 years. (There was, after all, no deffinite established tradition of sorcerers living significantly longer than common mortals before the WW went into seclusion at the end of the 17th century, although Muggle folklore has since granted them that possibility through lumping wizards with other fanciful beings.) 3. There is no more reason to believe that wizards' lifecycles progress in the same steady pace of Muggles' unmodified physical processes than that they don't. We do not know how life-extending spells affect the physical capacities of wizards who use them. We particularly do not know what the trade-offs are, or how they would affect reproductive health. Would a witch and wizard of, say, the age of 62 typically decide to settle down and start a family? What little we see of the parents of Harry's schoolmates in the WW all appear to be of a coresponding physical age range as the parents of Harry's Muggle schoolmates'. Is this due to life extending spells/potions, or does one only start taking such steps after one has finished with the getting and bearing of children. (A supportive observation of this might be found in the fact that for various reasons, Black, Lupin, Pettigrew and Snape, all in their mid-30s, all evidently look every day of their ages, and more.) I modestly propose that; Yes, wizards live approximately twice as long as Muggles, but that they do not remain young significantly longer. They remain OLD significantly longer. Which means that the juvenile and "breeding" population of the WW might be only half of the total numbers. I would say less than half, but it has been made clear that dealing with magic on an everyday basis has a fairly high attrition rate and death by misadventure is probably high enough to thin the ranks. That is my first poiint. The second point relates to the rate of incidence of Muggle-born children adding to the population of the WW from outside it. Rowling's notes seem to have indicated that Muggle-borns account for roughly a quarter of Hogwarts students. This comes to (taking the 1000 student statement as a base) around 147-8 students in each year with approximately 20-21 Muggle-borns. Note: Harry noticed that there were a lot of Muggle-borns at Hogwarts after Ron's "most wizards are halfblooods anyway" speech. 20-21 magical births in Britian and Ireland each year is not a great many. But I can think of another "impossible" genetic glitch that still observably, takes place, and am wondering whether anyone has the numbers to cross check and compare it. Which is; the rate that blue-eyed parents produce dark-eyed children. Because it happens. Even though it IS supposedly impossible. And it happens often enough that no one goes looking for the milkman, too. Just about everyone knows of at least one incidence. A third point which occured to me after starting to write this post is that we have a couple of hints from canon and from Rowling that Hogwarts' has a secondary function of training not merely the next crop of witches and wizards, but of *specifically* training Muggle-born magical children to BE witches and wizards. Which would account for the high percentage of Muggle-borns among its student body. The question now becomes what induces the "predjudiced pureblood" crowd to send their children there as well. Is it considered an acceptable trade-off to expose their children to these mongerels while allowing them to meet and "network" their aquaintance with the children of other wizarding families for their future benefit? Is it the excellece of Hogwarts' academic standing? Because it stands to reason that there must be other methods of training and qualifying as a wizard apart from attendence at a Ministry-overseen boarding school. I am sure that there are procedures in existance which allow for home schooling and taking the standardized OWLS and NEWTS privately. For that matter, I suspect that some of the social maladaptiveness of quite a few of the Slytherins (and probably some others) is accounted for by their having been tutored privatly at home for their elementary instruction, and that they never saw so many other children in their life until the day they stepped onto Platform 9 3/4. -JOdel From prefectmarcus at yahoo.com Fri Aug 30 19:19:39 2002 From: prefectmarcus at yahoo.com (prefectmarcus) Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 19:19:39 -0000 Subject: Enchanted Objects (Re: A Map of very little Brain?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43378 There have been several objects that act with a will of their own: @Various mirrors comment upon the person using them. @Photo and portrait images talk and react to their viewers. They even go visiting other images. @Suits of armor laugh at pratfalls. @Doors that will only open if asked politely. @Hogwarts' front doors can be trained to recongize people @Mr. Weasley's car becomes wild in the forest @Various action figures @The Sorting Hat And to the point of this discussion - @The Marauder's Map @Tom Riddle's Diary All of these objects have one thing in common, they can think for themselves. But where is their brain? I think they capture the essense of people, rather than the people themselves. Look at Colin's photo of Harry and Lockhart. Image Harry refuses to be seen with Image Lockhart. Harry certainly didn't program the photo, neither did Lockhart or Colin. Harry's essense was captured in it. A similar process must be involved elsewhere. These essenses exist long after their originals have past on. Think of all the portraits of past Hogwarts' Headmasters that are still viable. In the case of the Map's response to our favorite potions professor, I think it is the reaction of the creators' 15-year-old-selves to one. Now, could Harry talk to James? Perhaps, but I doubt it would be very satisfactory. It would be Harry talking to a 15-year-old boy with three best buds hanging around. Map James simply is not Harry's dad. Harry would do better looking at his dad's picture in the photo album. Marcus From irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com Fri Aug 30 19:14:00 2002 From: irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com (Irene Mikhlin) Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 20:14:00 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Dirty!Harry and Stoned!Harry References: Message-ID: <001601c2505c$531825e0$288501d5@oemcomputer> No: HPFGUIDX 43379 Dicentra wrote: > Oh, and BTW, for those of you fretting about how Sirius let Snape's > head scrape on the tunnel's roof, I noticed this: "[Snape] clicked his > fingers, and the ends of the cords that bound Lupin flew to his hands. > 'I'll drag the werewolf. Perhaps the dementors will have a kiss for > him too --'" > > In my book, dragging a conscious man's body across bare, stony ground > is much worse than a few scrapes on the head of an unconscious man. > Isn't it very telling that Snape is always judged by what he threatens to do, or what the other characters suspect he would want to do: killing Trevor, feeding poison to Harry, failing Gryffindors in Potions, feeding innocent people to Dementors etc. ? He is so convincing that the readers feel like he actually did it. So, to answer your question - no, threatening to do something can't be worse than doing something else. Irene From irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com Fri Aug 30 19:14:00 2002 From: irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com (Irene Mikhlin) Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 20:14:00 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Dirty!Harry and Stoned!Harry References: Message-ID: <002501c2505c$a5fc8bc0$288501d5@oemcomputer> No: HPFGUIDX 43380 Dicentra wrote: > Oh, and BTW, for those of you fretting about how Sirius let Snape's > head scrape on the tunnel's roof, I noticed this: "[Snape] clicked his > fingers, and the ends of the cords that bound Lupin flew to his hands. > 'I'll drag the werewolf. Perhaps the dementors will have a kiss for > him too --'" > > In my book, dragging a conscious man's body across bare, stony ground > is much worse than a few scrapes on the head of an unconscious man. > Isn't it very telling that Snape is always judged by what he threatens to do, or what the other characters suspect he would want to do: killing Trevor, feeding poison to Harry, failing Gryffindors in Potions, feeding innocent people to Dementors etc. ? He is so convincing that the readers feel like he actually did it. So, to answer your question - no, threatening to do something can't be worse than doing something else. Irene From irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com Fri Aug 30 19:34:33 2002 From: irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com (Irene Mikhlin) Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 20:34:33 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Bully!Sirius, Snape's Grudge References: Message-ID: <002601c2505c$a719e2a0$288501d5@oemcomputer> No: HPFGUIDX 43381 Elkins wrote: IM> > Is it just me, or did anyone else at this point felt compelled to > > say "Hello, Sirius Black!" ? > > Oh, excellent. Excellent, someone actually read my post. :-) > > Hmmm. Well, I'm also one of those Snapefans who definitely received > the impression that Snape was hassled by James' group of friends, and > particularly by Sirius, back in the day (we few, we happy few...), > and I think that the extent to which Sirius matches the classic bully > profile very likely *does* have much to do with the popularity of > that reading. I don't know if I'd say that there is nothing to > support this reading in the canon, though. I was trying to err on the conservative side, exactly in order to avoid being diagnosed with the "fanfic contamination". We can support this reading based on some indirect evidence, like Adult!Sirius attitude, the map etc., but the canon gives us almost nothing about the schoolboy!Sirius directly (well, there is always the prank, but, as we all agree it's more in the category of attempted murder than bullying, so it does not help to support this reading) > Poor Severus just can't catch a break, can he, and JKR plays that > fact for pathos as well as for laughs, I'd say. I do think that we > are meant to read a certain degree of pathos into this portrayal of > Snape as the constant voyeur: a hostile outsider, yes, but always an > outsider trying to look in. I also think that the reader is meant to > sympathize a great deal with Snape when he finally Just Plain Snaps > at the end of PoA, even while also laughing at him. Certainly > I've always found that sequence just plain heart-breaking, even while > I also take enjoyment in its (*deeply* malicious!) humour. > > (Wasn't it you, Irene, who once cited end of PoA as just plain killer > in terms of Snape sympathy? I seem to remember wanting to slip a "me > too" at the end of a sig sometime to you for that one, but then > somehow never quite managed to get around to it.) Yes, it was me. It was a killer in a sense that I prefer Snape when he is slightly more in control - both of himself and of events. But I don't remember getting malicious enjoyment, probably was too busy identifying. Think of a hellish year Snape (and the rest of the teachers) had in PoA - all those night patrols, all the false and not so false alarms. You spoke about the map being the painful reminder, but Lupin himself is much more painful reminder. If we go along with the theory of Snape as a "victim bully", the Boggart incident has very different dynamics: Snape tries (in his best antisocial manner) to give Lupin a professional advice, to establish they are now equal - Professor to Professor. But Lupin shows him that nothing changed and he can turn him to a laughing stock just as easily as 20 years ago. So, after all this stress, it's not surprising that Snape loses it when confronted with his two favourite adults and three favourite kids. (And still he does better than Sirius - when Ron stays between Sirius and Peter, Sirius breaks Ron's leg. When Harry stands between Snape and Sirius, Snape tries to reason with him I've just looked up this episode - it's too funny. In a "reverse vampire" mode he tells Harry three times to get out of the way. Is it a magical formula? ). But I digress. The most heart-breaking part of all this plot line, for me, is Dumbledore's behaviour. He plays with Snape's sanity with as much cruelty as the twins play with Percy, but on a bigger scale. Irene From dicentra at xmission.com Fri Aug 30 20:14:02 2002 From: dicentra at xmission.com (dicentra63) Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 20:14:02 -0000 Subject: Dirty!Harry and Stoned!Harry In-Reply-To: <002501c2505c$a5fc8bc0$288501d5@oemcomputer> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43382 Dicentra wrote: Oh, and BTW, for those of you fretting about how Sirius let Snape's head scrape on the tunnel's roof, I noticed this: "[Snape] clicked his fingers, and the ends of the cords that bound Lupin flew to his hands. 'I'll drag the werewolf. Perhaps the dementors will have a kiss for him too --'" In my book, dragging a conscious man's body across bare, stony ground is much worse than a few scrapes on the head of an unconscious man. Irene answered: Isn't it very telling that Snape is always judged by what he threatens to do, or what the other characters suspect he would want to do: killing Trevor, feeding poison to Harry, failing Gryffindors in Potions, feeding innocent people to Dementors etc. ? So, to answer your question - no, threatening to do something can't be worse than doing something else. Dicentra retorts: He didn't threaten to drag Lupin back to the castle, he announced it. And he would have gotten away with it, too, if it hadn't been for those meddling kids and their collective *Expelliarmus*. And for what it's worth, part of the head-scraping happened while Sirius was talking to Harry, right after Harry said he most definitely *would* like to move in with him. Siri was so happy he didn't notice what he was doing. (Not that he cared, mind. :D) --Dicentra From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Aug 30 20:25:08 2002 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 20:25:08 -0000 Subject: Snape's Sanity Re: Bully!Sirius, Snape's Grudge In-Reply-To: <002601c2505c$a719e2a0$288501d5@oemcomputer> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43383 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Irene Mikhlin" wrote: > > But I digress. The most heart-breaking part of all this plot line, > for me, is Dumbledore's behaviour. He plays with Snape's > sanity with as much cruelty as the twins play with Percy, but on a bigger scale. Do you really think so? I always thought when Dumbledore said, "Unless you are suggesting that Harry and Hermione are able to be in two places at once, I'm afraid I don't see any point in troubling them further," he was telling Snape, "They used the time turner to help Sirius escape, they had my approval, and unless you're prepared to get me thrown out of Hogwarts along with them, you had better shut up now." Which Snape does. The students didn't know about the Time Turner, but there's no reason to assume the teachers didn't. McGonagall did, for sure. Pippin From eloiseherisson at aol.com Fri Aug 30 20:54:26 2002 From: eloiseherisson at aol.com (eloiseherisson at aol.com) Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 16:54:26 EDT Subject: The Burrow (again!)/ English Eccentrics (was: Arthur Weasley) Message-ID: <70.221d51af.2aa13582@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 43384 Errol (nice to see you back, Errol!): > besides, as bboy_mn remarked, about Hagrid's route, > >>Hagrid specifically mentions Bristol, which is West of the Burrow > whileLondon/Surrey is East of the Burrow.<< I'm sorry, what is the evidence that Bristol is west of The Burrow again? I thought most people wanted to site Ottery St Catchpole in Devon, which is south-west of Bristol. This reminds me. Recently I had this exchange with Steve, the modest Lexicographer: >> I have also used the Ottery St Mary analogy to suggest that Ottery >>St Catchpole is somewhere in south Devon, but to be fair, we don't >>actually *know* that it is. It's obviously the inspiration for the name, >>but we don't know the location. >I don't think that Ottery St. Catchpole is Ottery St. Mary, since >that's a fairly large town. But because of the Ottery in the name, >it almost certainly has to be located along the Otter River, don't >you think? If it were a Wizarding village, I wouldn't be so certain >that they would follow naming conventions like that (although they >probably would). But since it's a Muggle town, wouldn't you say that >it's a sure thing? Are there examples of towns in Britain that >include the name of the river but AREN'T located along or near it? >Steve >The (not infallible) Lexicon Well, you know I have been thinking about this and I decided to have a good look at the road atlas whilst we were driving from Bristol to Lacock Abey (whose cloisters were used in the CTMNBN) the other day. There is another place called Ottery (saintless, though!) in Devon, just north of Tavistock, nowhere near the River Otter (although I can't guarantee that there isn't a smaller Otter, not marked on the map). Still Devon, though. There are quite a lot of British place names elsewhere starting with 'otter', a relic of the days when otters were numerous in our waterways. Fyredriftwood: >On the subject of Arthur Weasley, I have a question to ask: Why does >he obsess over the plugs and batteries, and other little trinkets of >the Muggle culture? Is it because he wasn't ever exposed to it before >in his life, or because he's a wizard and Muggle's always have >facinated him? Or, is it because they're small and people like to >collect small things? >Arthur Weasley has always seemed a bit.... hmm, how to put this >politically correct.. okay, fine... he's odd... sort of like how >Dumbledore is. They're both a bit excentric, but maybe that will be >important. Who knows?! We have a great fondness for eccentrics over here, you know. The English Eccentic is just, well, a stereotype, I suppose (I expect you get Scottish and Welsh and Irish eccentics too, but I think of it as being a rather English stereotype). In fact Arthur and Dumbledore aren't that odd at all, to my way of thinking....... And collecting things in itself isn't at all eccentric in itself, it's just that collecting plugs is. It's strange to us, because to us they're ordinary, utilitarian objects (although I'd lay money on someone somewhere really collecting them!) and strange to his family, because wizards as a group aren't interested in Muggle things at all. Yes, I think we can be sure that he was never exposed to electical things as a child (it is held that electrical things don't work in a magical environment). It's just a comic manifestation of his obsession with all things Muggle. Eloise [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From prefectmarcus at yahoo.com Fri Aug 30 20:54:31 2002 From: prefectmarcus at yahoo.com (prefectmarcus) Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 20:54:31 -0000 Subject: Outsider!Snape (NOT!) (Re: Bully!Sirius, Snape's Grudge) In-Reply-To: <002601c2505c$a719e2a0$288501d5@oemcomputer> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43385 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Irene Mikhlin" wrote: > > Poor Severus just can't catch a break, can he, and JKR plays that > > fact for pathos as well as for laughs, I'd say. I do think that we > > are meant to read a certain degree of pathos into this portrayal of > > Snape as the constant voyeur: a hostile outsider, yes, but always an > > outsider trying to look in. I don't seen Snape as an outsider at all. He certainly didn't get along with the marauders, but nobody in this life ever got along with everybody, even Will Rogers. But that was then, this is now. Snape trust Dumbledore and Dumbledore trusts Snape. He trusts him enough to include him in the secret of Sirius's dog form. Even McGonagall can't claim that one! This is the core reason that I reject the theories of those who say that Snape will be tempted to betray Dumbledore. He loused up his life once before. He now has his self-respect back. He is honored and respected now (you can hate someone and still respect them.) Snape is now definitely part of Dumbledore's inner circle. No way is he going to louse that up. > But I digress. The most heart-breaking part of all this plot line, > for me, is Dumbledore's behaviour. He plays with Snape's > sanity with as much cruelty as the twins play with Percy, but on a > bigger scale. > > Irene How? Snape just made a wild accusation based primarily upon emotion. It wasn't logical. (Yes, it was true, but still it was illogical.) Dumbledore was challenging him on it. If Snape chooses to believe Harry and Hermione has something to do with Black's escape, then he had better be prepared to explain how. Otherwise, he is just making a fool of himself in front of the Minister of Magic. Marcus From irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com Fri Aug 30 21:25:01 2002 From: irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com (Irene Mikhlin) Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 22:25:01 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Outsider!Snape (NOT!) (Re: Bully!Sirius, Snape's Grudge) References: Message-ID: <012201c2506b$b64827a0$288501d5@oemcomputer> No: HPFGUIDX 43386 prefectmarcus wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Irene Mikhlin" wrote: > > > Poor Severus just can't catch a break, can he, and JKR plays that That wasn't me, it was Elkins, I think. > > Snape trust Dumbledore and Dumbledore trusts Snape. He trusts him > enough to include him in the secret of Sirius's dog form. We don't know what happened between the end of PoA and the events in the end of GoF. You are right, they trust each other (again?) and I'd like to be a fly on the wall when Snape and Dumbledore discussed the events of PoA. But I still very unhappy with the way Dumbledore dealt with it in PoA. (Yes, I know, he didn't have time for something else... We have been there, I believe). It's not just the ending, it's the whole year. Lupin, in a sense, has been helping Sirius to get in the castle - by withholding the information about his animagus abilities. Dumbledore dismisses Snape's suspisions time after time. If Harry will find it very hard to justify why he mustn't tell things to Dumbledore in book 5, Snape is practically conditioned to try it on his own again. Can you imagine Snape in GoF approaching Dumbledore with something like: "Headmaster, someone is brewing Polyjuice in this school. Oh, and Moody just told me you gave him permission to search my office. Silly man - he must be an impostor then". > This is the core reason that I reject the theories of those who say > that Snape will be tempted to betray Dumbledore. I don't think he will. > How? Snape just made a wild accusation based primarily upon > emotion. It wasn't logical. (Yes, it was true, but still it was > illogical.) WAY more logical than the kids' story. But it wasn't true. Or are you talking about the Sirius escape accusation? Pippin wrote: >Do you really think so? I always thought when Dumbledore said, >"Unless you are suggesting that Harry and Hermione are able to >be in two places at once, I'm afraid I don't see any point in >troubling them further," he was telling Snape, "They used >the time turner to help Sirius escape, they had my approval, and >unless you're prepared to get me thrown out of Hogwarts along >with them, you had better shut up now." Which Snape does. Maybe you are right. Actually I really hope that's the right reading of Dumbledore's behaviour. Because otherwise he was just saying to Snape "Yes, Sirius is still my golden boy and I'll choose him over you any day". Hard to reconcile with Snape's loyalty the next year. Irene From fyredriftwood at yahoo.com Fri Aug 30 19:20:05 2002 From: fyredriftwood at yahoo.com (fyredriftwood) Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 19:20:05 -0000 Subject: Predictions... and more predictions, oh what fun! In-Reply-To: <00a601c25010$6d4a9b60$9600000a@newpc> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43387 Sphause wrote some predictions, but then Yoris came in after him with his own: > > 1. Dumbledore will die (Fairly Obvious) > NO dumbledore will not die, dumbledore will never really fight just sit back > and order around... dumledore is the one that does the final explanation > after harry killed voldemort Fyre Wood (me):I think it will be one of those "Death of a Master" type deaths. Dumbledore will teach all he can to Harry and then he'll keel over and die. > > 2. Harry, Ron and Hermione will not die (Duh!) > > one of them could die... don't know who though... i believe not ron... so > harry taking voldemort with him or hermione... Fyre Wood (me): I think that Harry is going to sacrifice himself to save everyone and take Voldy with him. Ron more than likely is going evil and perhaps he'll have to die. Infact,let's just keep that going and just kill everyone else off! > > 3. Snape will be a hero > > 4. Snape will give his life to save Harry's Fyre Wood (ME): Snape being a hero and giving his life to save Harry's?! In my opinion, Snape has always been one to watch out for himself and do what's best for Snape. He's saved Harry's life so many times because that's what you do when you work for Dumbledore. Didn't it seem rather *odd* that he came back to the Light Side *just before* Voldy was killed? > > 7. Voldemort will die at Harry's hand never to return. Fyre Wood (ME!): I don't think that you can actually kill of an evil, but the threat of it will always be there. Grindewald was killed just two years before Tom Riddle graduated and perhaps Riddle was already part of Grindewald's force of evil-doers then... and maybe took over when his master was killed. I think that if Voldy is killed, there will be an even bigger threat to watch out for. Lucius Malfoy or perhaps someone new will want to reak havock everywhere. > > 8. Ron and Hermione will be an item. Fyre Wood (ME!): My website (Hidden Desire--A Draco/Harry and HP Humor Shrine) has already gotten into the theory of the Draco/Harry/Hermione/Ron lovesquare. However, posting the thoughts of this on here would be unappropriate and I'll get another lovely message from those List Elves--I love you guys, btw! I do think they'll come together, but this will lead Harry to some sort of seculsion. Harry will become the third wheel and perhaps have to kick it alone for awhile.. Here's some of my predictions: 1. Neville will do something great, and maybe he'll die later on. 2. Dudley shows magic later in life (oh the Dursleys would wet their panties on this one). 3. A Weasley goes to the Dark Side... bets are 3-1 that it's two Weasleys. 4. Draco Malfoy fights for neither the dark or light side of magic. He, like Snape, does what is best for him. --Fyre Wood, who is now going to eat her pizza and fantasize about being Voldy's right-hand partner in crime. "There is no good or evil... there is only power and those too weak to see it!"--Voldy, PS From mcarlin at ev1.net Fri Aug 30 19:50:57 2002 From: mcarlin at ev1.net (meggie_sunshine) Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 19:50:57 -0000 Subject: Predictions In-Reply-To: <00a901c24fd2$debdc3a0$76355742@co.sprintbbd.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43388 New to the group, so hi to all! :) Here's my first thoughts on these predictions. I'll post some more at the bottom. > 1. Dumbledore will die (Fairly Obvious) I don't agree with this. I think Dumbledore will perhaps be thought to be dead, but will turn out not to be. This might happen as soon as book 5, but more likely afterward. > 2. Harry, Ron and Hermione will not die (Duh!) Unfortunately, I love all three but I do believe at least one of them will die. At this rate, I am more inclined to say Ron, but it could be Hermione. I do *not* think it will be Harry. My reasons are (A) characters have a way of growing on a person, and I think JKR will bend to her own love of Harry and (B)the public opinion (as there are tons of kids reading these that would be devastated should Harry die). > 3. Snape will be a hero Good call on this one. As with the others I agree that it will be somewhat an unconventional save. > 4. Snape will give his life to save Harry's Which I agree will take place by this method. > 5. If Snape does not die, he will become the headmaster. No I don't agree with this one. Maybe it's just my rather jaded opinion of Snape, but I don't believe he'd be a good, impartial, headmaster. > 6. If Snape does dies, McGonagall will become the headmaster. She is second-in-charge of Hogwarts, I thought. So I'd imagine if Dumbledore is indisposed (dead or not) she would take over at that point. > 7. Voldemort will die at Harry's hand never to return. No I think that I agree with the poster who said that it will be left ambiguous. Maybe a bit cheesy, but I think that's the way JKR will do it. > 8. Ron and Hermione will be an item. I don't believe this one either. And not because I don't have wishful thinking about Ron/Hermione ships, but I see it more as this: Ron will be secretly in love with Hermione, and she will remain pretty much clueless. She will learn of his true feelings as he's dying, or after he's dead. Or the other way 'round, but I feel strongly for the former. **And now for my own predictions** 1) Remus Lupin will die either at Voldemort's hand or a Death Eaters'. 2) Sirius Black will have his name cleared and will join the fight against Voldemort. 3) We will find out why Arthur Weasley knows so many MOM important people. And we'll learn more about his/Molly's past. 4) There will eventually be an American in the books. I don't know who/why, but I think it will happen. 5) Cornelius Fudge will be ousted as Minister of Magic either in Book 6 or the last one. 6) Either Bill or Charlie Weasley will return in more depth. 7) JKR has said that there will be a book (was it 5? I can't remember offhand) where the students will go away from Hogwarts. I think there will be a quest of some sort (one the might require the return of anyone from Lupin to the Weasleys). 8) 7 was always my lucky number, so I'll stop there. Let me know what you think! I love predictions {gleeful giggling} Newbie-ly, Megan From hp_fan16 at yahoo.com Fri Aug 30 20:01:17 2002 From: hp_fan16 at yahoo.com (gabrielle jones) Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 13:01:17 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Worshipping Harry In-Reply-To: <1030704225.3645.23052.m8@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <20020830200117.39570.qmail@web12903.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 43389 Now I searched long and hard and I'm almost certain no one's mentioned this. (Hope I'm right) I was reading through EH's post about Harry?s shrinking popularity, and I came across one part that really stuck a chord in my head. EH: >>In addition to all this, for the Wizarding community to begin to turn against Harry and doubt him is a far more believable turn, rather than have them continue to practically worship Harry as they have for 13 years. << (Yes, sorry, out of that long message this is all that struck me, forgive me) But it was the "worshiping Harry for 13 years" part. As I was reading that I thought, "Well yeah, the world?s only even known the real Harry for four years, he was locked away at the Dursely?s so long." So, I didn't pay too much attention at first. Then, suddenly I was like oh my gosh, what if Harry wasn't just staying with the Dursley's for protection, but because Dumbledore was going to need his popularity! Now, admittedly, I haven't a strong case or anything but I was thinking, it definitely could be at least an other reason why Harry was there. Here?s a bit of an idea: Dumbledore leaves Harry at the Dursley's, but no one *really* knows why. Protection, that's all Dumbledore tells them, (Minerva and Hagrid.) But maybe it wasn?t some physical protection, for after all, there wasn?t any real reason he'd be harmed. A DE maybe, but there was so few that were actually loyal to V, who'd really risk it? Well ok maybe some but that's not my point. What is my point? My point is, maybe Harry needed to be protected from the public's eye. The public won't tire of him so quickly, he would become, in essence, more of a fairytale that they loved to hear about. So, when Harry does gets his letter, comes to Hogwarts, Harry becomes an instant, once again, public favorite, and Dumbledore has a pawn Dumbledore, who I've always thought must have some understanding of the future (whether due to his knowledge of the past or otherwise) creates a sort of plan. His plan, probably about when to tell Harry certain things, when he *knows* certain things will happen, lots of little things that would probably answer most of our questions, is based on Harry's influence on people like the MoM, or even the Weasely's (added support) He couldn't convince Nicholas Flamel to give up the stone, his life, so when Voldemort comes for it, he sends out Harry. He was cleaver about it yes, but Dumbledore must have known Harry would stop him. Hagrid and the Flute? Ron happening to be good at chess? And who's to say Dumbledore hasn't given Hermoine a reading list of some good "useful" books? The CoS is opened, sure maybe this wasn't foreseen by Dumbledore, but he's prepared nonetheless, he concocts a plan, and Harry, who just happens to be parseltounge, is the key player. With a little help from Fawkes and Godric's sword, Harry should be just grand. Happenings in all the books could easily be credited towards Dd. And I'm sure many, if not most, probably think so. They key though, why Harry, could just be his fame. Now that that's dwindling, and Harry's older and experianced, they're ready to fight, full throttle, Lord Voldemort! I think I over explained maybe a little (blushes at her enthusiasm) but I think Harry's staying at the Dursley's definetly preserved his fame. Personally I think it was one of Dumbledore's intentions. I at least think it's a worthy topic, and might contradict the Dursleys serving an other purpose. shoot me down if it's your will. Normal- ~the *ugly* Veela~ --------------------------------- Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From iamevilhomer323 at yahoo.com Fri Aug 30 20:04:02 2002 From: iamevilhomer323 at yahoo.com (Evil Homer) Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 13:04:02 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Predictions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020830200402.26414.qmail@web12905.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 43390 --- jferer wrote: > 2. Harry, Ron and Hermione will not die (Duh!) > Don't be too sure. Ron's fate is by no means > sure, and JKR plays > coy with Harry's. I'd say he's going to live. I > think Hermione is safe My prediction regarding Ron's fate: In Book 5 or 6, Ron and Hermoine become an item. Harry and Ginny will also become an item(I am *such* a fan of the Harry/Ginny scenario. Always go with the underdog, I say). Then, in Book 7, I think a situation will arise in which Peter Pettigrew tries to kill Harry, and Ron will save Harry and die himself(which would be ironic in a very twisted way, seeing as Pettigrew used to be Ron's pet...) Harry will then *freak out* and go through a huge guilt spiral, because: 1. Because he saved Pettigrew in PoA, his best friend was killed. 2. Ron wasn't only Harry's best friend but his *other* best friend(Hermoine)'s boyfriend, so he will have to deal with her grief as well. 3. And on top of *that*, Ron was his girlfriend's brother, so he will have her grief to deal with too. Harry will be so overcome with grief and guilt it will fuel his hatred towards Voldemort even more, and *this* will be what propels Harry to bring down Voldemort once and for all. Just a theory. I could be *way* off... but interesting, no? Either way I think Ron's fate is ultimately a dark one - I really think he will either be tempted to the Dark Side(due to his increasing bitterness towards Harry's fame and money), or he will die. Also I think Hermoine will live and Harry as well - if JKR was really going to kill him off, I don't think she would have ever even *hinted* at it, seeing as she'd probably assume no one would expect his death. She'd want it to come out of left field. -EH ===== "I think it is clear that we can expect great things from you" "Bless them, they'll go to any lengths to ignore magic, even if it's staring them in the face..." "Exactly," said Dumbledore, beaming once more. "Which makes you very different from Tom Riddle. It is our choices, Harry, that show us what we really are, far more than our abilities." "He couldn't know that at this very moment, people meeting in secret all over the country were holding up their glasses and saying in hushed voices: "To Harry Potter- the boy who lived!" __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes http://finance.yahoo.com From shufan90 at yahoo.com Fri Aug 30 20:05:55 2002 From: shufan90 at yahoo.com (shufan90) Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 20:05:55 -0000 Subject: Molly did so baby sit Harry (Not !)/DE Children In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43391 --- This is my first posting so I hope I get this correct. In regards to the missing time and where Harry was, how about Hogwarts itself, and Hagrid cared for him. After all Dumbeldore sends Hagrid to retrieve Harry so he has some faith the Hargrid can care for a child. Harry would be protected at Hogwarts because of Dumbledore, Valdemort was afraid of him, and that noone can apparte onto the grounds. This will explain the special connection that Harry and Hagrid have and why Dumbledore sent Hagrid to Harry on his 11th birthday. Additionally to the thread that Lily and Snape may have been an item or that Snape may have had children. There is a statement PoA or GoF that Snape arrived at Hogwarts knowing more curses than the advanced years. Snape is not from a muggle family, so he must have learned from his own family. What if Snapes father went to school with Tom Riddle? Voldemort then betrayed Snapes family along with his threat to the Potters, Snape having unrequited love for Lilly, made Snape become a double agent. Jennifer - enjoying the group. From eloiseherisson at aol.com Fri Aug 30 21:32:06 2002 From: eloiseherisson at aol.com (eloiseherisson at aol.com) Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 17:32:06 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: TBAY: Canon College: DEs and Aurors 101 (WAS "Despi... Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43392 Cindy: > Cindy swallows, licking her parched lips. "Well. Uh. I'm not so > sure about that. I . . . I was doing some reading about the use of > deadly force in this *enormous* criminal procedure law textbook that > I carry around. And there are certain *rules* about when cops can > use deadly force. They can use deadly force in defense of > themselves or in defense of others, of course, like Elkins says. > > "But things get murky when we get to the subject of fleeing > suspects. See, cops aren't normally allowed to shoot a suspect in > the back when the suspect is trying to run away. Not normally. But > they *can* shoot suspects in the back in one situation that might be > pertinent here ? when the suspect poses a danger if allowed to > escape. I think there are limitations on this, of course. Like > cops can only do this for suspects who commit a serious crime in the > presence of the cop, maybe. I think there are other limitations, > like there has to be an attempt to apprehend and a warning or > something. That's basically how I think it works in the muggle > world. In the U.S. About 15 years ago when I last read that law > textbook. Unless something has changed, anyway. > > I'm *not* a lawyer, so I don't have any great law tomes handy, but I think it might be relevant to add a cultural dimension here. Remember that over here, the police are *not* normally armed. Only certain officers are allowed to bear arms and the circumstances under which they are allowed to bear, and even more to use arms are strictly controlled. *Any* police killing is news-worthy and ends up in an inquiry. I don't think we really have a concept (certainly not a publically perceived concept) of the police being *allowed* to kill under certain circumstances: any police killing will have to be justified according to its individual merits. We don't have a gun culture and the idea that the police should be allowed to kill, except in the most extreme of circumstances (probably immediately life-threatening), is alien to us. By which I mean that the passage in question possibly seems more extreme in the measures allowed (whatever they were) to British readers than to American readers. Eloise (Expecting to be corrected!) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From pengolodh_sc at yahoo.no Fri Aug 30 22:36:59 2002 From: pengolodh_sc at yahoo.no (pengolodh_sc) Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 22:36:59 -0000 Subject: Modest Proposeal/Scale of things In-Reply-To: <161.131f5d36.2aa113ce@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43393 --- In HPforGrownups, Jodel wrote: > Actually there are a couple of small things on the subject which > I thought I'd mention. > > First; in tying the probably number of adults in a community > to the number of school-aged children (a good idea, btw) no > one has mentioned that the ratio needs to be adjusted to allow > for wizard's extended lifespans. There is a strong probability > that this has resulted in there being anything up to twice as > many adults to children as has been established in mundane > world studies. [snip] Actually we have - I did it in posts made about a year or more ago, and I think others have too. Demographics of modern-day Scotland indicate that the number of students in the age-bracket 11-18 years old constitute roughly 10% of the total population, which means 1000 students for a given town or area indicates a total population of 10 000. When several of us have extrapolated the number 20 000, that is from a simplification in the xpansion of statistical data to cover the expanded lifespan of wizards, assuming (1) that the average lifespan of wizards is twice that of muggles, and (2) that the expansion is linear (which it in actuality is not), leading to the estiamte that there is a 20:1 ratio between the total population and the number of students in the British wizarding-world. > Some factors to consider are; > > 1. Dumbledore at the age of 150 is regarded as old, but not yet > frail from age. If Dumbeldore is a (physically) representitive > example we might postulate that wizard lifespansd are roughly > twice that of Muggles. (There is almost certainly an older > discussion on wizarding lifespans somewhere in the archives. > But it was before my time and I am only active through the > Digest, so I will apologize for repeating anyone else's > arguments without attributiuon.) > > 2. That the children presently attending Hogwarts do NOT > appear to be maturing at a slower rate than their Muggle > ccounerparts suggests that unless wizard's extended lifespans > are due to a natural slowing of the aging process upon maturity > this extention of lifespan may be artificial, dependent upon > certain routine physical maintenance spells developed over the > past 300-400 years. [snip] Not necessarily. Whenever I have seen fantasy-literature inwhich some sub-group of particularly noble humans (or elves) is particularly long-lived (whether they be the Numenoreans/Dunedain of Tolkien, the Elcyion Lacar of Katharine Kerr, or others), the trends seems to be that they reach maturity as quickly as other men, but that they stay at the prime physically for much, much longer (looking to most people as though they're betweeen 30 and 40 years old), and that they only start aging properly when getting close to the end of their natural life. Remember that Dumbledore around 1940-45 (when he must have been around 100) had auburn hair, and that Professor McGonagall in the books is described as having black hair. > 3. There is no more reason to believe that wizards' lifecycles > progress in the same steady pace of Muggles' unmodified > physical processes than that they don't. [snip] > (A supportive observation of this might be found in the fact > that for various reasons, Black, Lupin, Pettigrew and Snape, > all in their mid-30s, all evidently look every day of their > ages, and more.) They also all seem to have a reasons for doing so - Black having spent 12 years in Azkaban, Lupin going through his monthly, and there seems to be reason to believe Snape is carrying around quite a few ghosts of his own. Pettigrew too has had his share of stress. > I modestly propose that; Yes, wizards live approximately twice > as long as Muggles, but that they do not remain young > significantly longer. [snip] Based on my points above, I disagree about how long they stay young - I think they stay in their prime much longer. Best regards Christian Stub? From knitwit1912 at sympatico.ca Fri Aug 30 22:21:45 2002 From: knitwit1912 at sympatico.ca (potions_student) Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 22:21:45 -0000 Subject: Outsider!Snape (NOT!) (Re: Bully!Sirius, Snape's Grudge) In-Reply-To: <012201c2506b$b64827a0$288501d5@oemcomputer> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43394 Pippin wrote: > >Do you really think so? I always thought when Dumbledore said, > >"Unless you are suggesting that Harry and Hermione are able to > >be in two places at once, I'm afraid I don't see any point in > >troubling them further," he was telling Snape, "They used > >the time turner to help Sirius escape, they had my approval, and > >unless you're prepared to get me thrown out of Hogwarts along > >with them, you had better shut up now." Which Snape does. Then Irene responded: > Maybe you are right. Actually I really hope that's the right reading > of Dumbledore's behaviour. Because otherwise he was just > saying to Snape "Yes, Sirius is still my golden boy and I'll choose > him over you any day". Hard to reconcile with Snape's loyalty > the next year. Me: I certainly hope, as you do, Irene, that Pippin's interpretation is correct, though I'm not entirely convinced. When Snape, Dumbledore, and Fudge return to the hospital wing after Sirius' escape, Dumbledore is described as looking calm and "...Indeed, he looked as though he was quite enjoying himself." After Dumbledore asks Snape how Harry and Hermione could be in two places at once, JKR mentions that "...[his] eyes were twinkling behind his glasses." Now Dumbledore *is* mentioned as addressing Snape calmly during that sequence, and so I do hope that the smile was gone and the twinkle, if anything, was meant to convey the message Pippin put forward. However, I still don't entirely trust that smile or that twinkle! When Dumbledore's eyes twinkle or...*gleam*...I start to worry. :-) But if Dumbledore was saying it in a teasing tone, then there must really be something to keep Snape from leaving Hogwarts! --Karen "Potions Student" From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Aug 30 23:00:29 2002 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 23:00:29 -0000 Subject: Outsider!Snape (NOT!) (Re: Bully!Sirius, Snape's Grudge) In-Reply-To: <012201c2506b$b64827a0$288501d5@oemcomputer> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43395 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Irene Mikhlin" wrote: > But I still very unhappy with the way Dumbledore dealt with it in PoA. (Yes, I know, he didn't have time for something else... We have been there, > I believe). > It's not just the ending, it's the whole year. Lupin, in a sense, has been helping Sirius to get in the castle - by withholding the information about his animagus abilities. Dumbledore dismisses Snape's suspisions > time after time. > Can you imagine Snape in GoF approaching Dumbledore with > something like: "Headmaster, someone is brewing Polyjuice in this school.Oh, and Moody just told me you gave him permission to search my office. > Silly man - he must be an impostor then". There's a world of difference between dismissing someone's suspicions and insisting on the presumption of innocence in the absence of proof, which is what Dumbledore does in CoS when Snape accuses Harry of Petrifying Filch's cat. That is what I assume Dumbledore was doing with Snape's accusations in PoA and GoF. In any case, it would hardly have been proper to discuss Lupin in front of Percy. As for GoF, if Snape tells Dumbledore about the night on the stair, and I believe he did, what would it prove? As Sirius says, it would be perfectly in character for Real!Moody to search people's offices. And Fake!Moody doesn't actually state that he had Dumbledore's permission to search Snape's office. He only implies it...a fine old interrogation tactic of which I am sure Real!Moody would approve. As Snape himself says, potion ingredients go missing all the time. In the absence of other evidence, it would be far-fetched to suspect Moody, especially since Sirius would have told Dumbledore that the person in the office was Crouch. If confronted about the potion ingredients, Fake!Moody probably just laughed and said that if he wanted boomslang skin, he'd hardly need to burgle a teacher's office for it. Of course Snape should've told Dumbledore about the Map, but then, it doesn't appear that Sirius did either. (Does the Intelligent!Map have a way of keeping people from talking about it with those who aren't in the know? It seems the Diary did.) Pippin From porphyria at mindspring.com Fri Aug 30 23:09:07 2002 From: porphyria at mindspring.com (porphyria_ash) Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 23:09:07 -0000 Subject: Outsider!Snape (NOT!) (Re: Bully!Sirius, Snape's Grudge) In-Reply-To: <012201c2506b$b64827a0$288501d5@oemcomputer> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43396 Irene said, of Snape and Dumbledore at the end of PoA: << The most heart-breaking part of all this plot line, for me, is Dumbledore's behaviour. He plays with Snape's sanity with as much cruelty as the twins play with Percy, but on a bigger scale. >> And Pippin and Marcus expressed some objections, which I'll get to. I myself agree with Irene that Dumbledore is cruel here, but I don't see this as any indication that Snape is either an outsider to Dumbledore's plans or likely to betray him. Specifically, I interpret Dumbledore's relationship with Snape to resemble that of father/son, with all the concomitant misunderstandings, jealousies, resentments and unconditional love, just like the real thing. I can't help but interpret Snape's antipathy towards Harry, James, Lupin and Sirius as a version of sibling rivalry: he relies on Dumbledore's support so much for his own sense of stability (as evidenced in E&E in GoF) that any other potential rival for Dumbledore's fatherly affections instills Snape with jealous, irrational terror and loathing. And yet, they remain loyal to each other on some sort of fundamental level, despite arguments and downright ugly incidents. For instance, I interpret this line "Unless you are suggesting that Harry and Hermione are able to be in two places at once, I'm afraid I don't see any point in troubling them further" as telling Snape, "They used the time turner to help Sirius escape, they had my approval," as Pippin says, but not so much as a warning to keep this quiet as open mockery: "They used the time turner to help Sirius escape, they had my approval, and there isn't a single thing you can do about it. So there!" I don't think there is any question of whether Snape's accusation of Harry being involved is illogical: I think Snape can probably think of a dozen magical reasons for how Harry and Hermione could be, or appear to be, in two places at once and Dumbledore knows this. Snape can't help but feel betrayed by Dumdledore who is, from his perspective, openly supporting both Sirius and Harry against his own attempt at bringing someone he thinks is a criminal to justice. Dumbledore is acting amused with all this, which strikes me as coldly unempathetic to Snape's obvious distress. Similarly, I see Dumbledore's remark "My memory is as good as it ever was, Severus," when Snape is very quietly begging for support and reassurance, to constitute a rather cruel rubbing of his nose in his past. I know there is more than one way to interpret this line, but seeing as how it really shuts Snape up, he is so affected that he can't even manage a reply but to turn around and leave, I can't help but think he's devastated by it. I interpret Dumbledore's vulture-hat Christmas-cracker joke as mildly sadistic as well. I know that Dumbledore might have meant that in fun, but seeing as he deliberately chose to do it in front of Harry and Ron who openly despise Snape, and with Harry in particular being an object of Snape's jealousy, I can't help but suspect that trying to poke fun at Snape at this point might have been a tactical error at best and cruelty at worst. Snape underreacts, so it's hard to tell what effect it has on him. But putting the joke in the context of what Irene describes of that year: << Think of a hellish year Snape (and the rest of the teachers) had in PoA all those night patrols, all the false and not so false alarms. You spoke about the map being the painful reminder, but Lupin himself is much more painful reminder. >> I would think that Snape is already a little too sensitized to what he feels as Dumbledore's dismissiveness towards him to be able to interpret mockery as good humor. BTW Irene, I totally agree with your interpretation of the Boggart incident as an unhappy regression for "Professor" Snape. And another thing! Dumbledore's words to Harry at the end of PS/SS bug me as well. << "...And then, your father did something Snape could never forgive." "What?" "He saved his life." "What?" "Yes..." said Dumbledore dreamily. "Funny, the way people's minds work, isn't it? Professor Snape couldn't bear being in your father's debt...." >> Obviously the context of this conversation was "make Harry feel OK about everything and tell him not to worry about Snape." Nevertheless, from what we later see of Real Wizarding Culture, where everyone is so obsessed with toughness and pride and honor and saving- face (Sirius and Lupin in the Shack, Crouch Sr., Gran Longbottom, Fudge, Lucius, etc.), Dumbledore's words sound rather deceitful in retrospect. How on earth could Snape, member of the proudest and most old-school House and himself saddled with a heavy sense of pride and gravitas, how could he *not* find the prank incident humiliating? Not only did he need to have his life saved, but it was saved by someone he already hated. And Dumbledore makes fun of him for it here -- "Funny, the way people's minds work." It's not Snape's mind that works funny here but the collective mind of the whole Wizarding Culture which Snape is a part of. Now, Dumbledore does not go along entirely with WW attitudes -- he champions the cause of Muggles in the face of indifference and hostility from his fellow wizards, and he praises Harry for sparing Pettigrew against Sirius and Lupin's inclinations. But you would think that he would at least *understand* why Snape would feel resentment over this incident, and yet he makes no attempt to defend Snape in front of Harry, or to even say something like "you'll understand him better when you're older." And yet, in spite of all this we are left with both Dumbledore and Snape in GoF expressing unquestioning loyalty towards each other. Marcus is right: << Snape trust Dumbledore and Dumbledore trusts Snape. He trusts him enough to include him in the secret of Sirius's dog form. Even McGonagall can't claim that one! >> This is something I too wanted to argue in a previous conversation with Darrin, but I didn't get around to it. Not only does Dumbledore let Snape see that Sirius is a big black dog Animagus (something he would have wanted kept from the enemy if Snape's loyalty were in question), but he also lets Snape know what Sirius's task is (round up the old gang) the minute he assigns it. Snape's task, on the other hand, is kept secret from everyone. And it's obvious that Snape and Dumbledore had plotted it out in secret beforehand. How to resolve it? Well, I like to imagine that Snape and Dumbledore did have a big, air-clearing bruhaha at some point between the end of PoA and midway through GoF, but we can't exactly prove this. What makes even more sense to me is that they just plain have a complicated relationship where they fight and fight and misunderstand and occasionally lash out at each other and come back to an understanding in the end when it really matters. In other words, like family. Marcus is right, IMO, to say that Snape will never louse up his relationship with Dumbledore because he is, finally, an insider, a family member, and he values this too much to lose it. In fact I see their relationship as a bit of a microcosm of Dumbledore's speech at the end of GoF: << "I say to you all, once again - in the light of Lord Voldemort's return, we are only as strong as we are united, as weak as we are divided. Lord Voldemort's gift for spreading discord and enmity is very great. We can fight it only by showing an equally strong bond of friendship and trust. Differences of habit and language are nothing at all if our aims are identical and our hearts are open." >> This is what Snape and Dumbledore exemplify, only on a much smaller and more intimate scale. They know they often disagree, to some extent they appear to come from different cultures, but they also know they are on the same side in the end and act accordingly. So while I think that neither of them behaves perfectly well towards each other, I also find their loyalty completely convincing and not too hard to reconcile with their moments of hostility. ~Porphyria From nithya_rachel at hotmail.com Fri Aug 30 23:40:58 2002 From: nithya_rachel at hotmail.com (errolowl) Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 23:40:58 -0000 Subject: Outsider!McGonagall (was Outsider!Snape (NOT!)) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43397 prefectmarcus wrote: >>Snape trusts Dumbledore and Dumbledore trusts Snape. He trusts him enough to include him in the secret of Sirius's dog form. Even McGonagall can't claim that one! << Why sure! Snape has a higher `trust' standing with Dumbledore than almost anyone else we know. Dumbledore keeps Snape's secrets and Snape maintains his implicit loyalty (apparently!) inspite of the everybook nitty-gritty problems that crop up. At the end of GoF, Dumbledore shields Snape's story from Madam Pomfrey and McGonagall; even keeps his mission from Sirius, who leaves the room before Snape does. Snape knows what Sirius is up to ? not vice versa...surely, that's a comfort to Snape? It might also be a show of confidence from Dumbledore ? a kind of "I trust you not to interfere or harm Sirius though he's in your power - you know exactly where he is". In fact, most of Dumbledore's communications with Snape seem to be this way ?oblique references in speeches or actions, that are left to Severus to interpret. Why? He gives direct enough orders (though crouched in terms of requests) to the other professors ? hardly ever to Snape. Dumbledore seems to have supreme confidence in Snape to take his speeches in context. The subtlety of the Snape-Dumbledore interactions is amazing. For further discussion see, Pip's post #39662 "The Spying Game and the Shrieking Shack" And unless sending out McGonagall before revealing Sirius's secret was a show of solidarity with Snape (see, I trust you more than her!), I come to the conclusion that it's McGonagall ?that wise and capable head of Griffyndor house, the respected deputy Headmistress - who gets shunted to the side each time!! Every time there is a crucial interview with Harry, our dear Minerva is quite pointedly asked to leave the scene, on the pretext of some minor task or the other (alert the kitchens, for goodness sake!). She gets to learn of crucial events from a third person (eg, Hagrid) and is curiously underdeveloped in her qualities and interactions as far as the storyline goes. Doesn't Dumbledore trust her? Which brings be back to one of Porphyria's excellent posts: >>I find McGonagall the most oddly underdeveloped character. I think Harry, boy or not, should be at least interested in the person who is his own Head of House and who teaches an important class he takes every year and who has shown favor towards him (bought him a broom, got him on the team early, went lightly on him over the Anglia incident). In theory he could half-notice her doing or saying something that might make her seem enigmatic or compelling or complex, even if he didn't care enough to interpret it. She just doesn't have Edge, she's not sexy from an adult point of view, we don't speculate much about her backstory. Again, we do do these things about Snape, Sirius and Lupin even though Harry couldn't care less. My attraction to the Evil!McGonagall theory, however farfetched it is, is that it makes her secondary, underdeveloped quality seem deliberate and gives her some juiciness. << Besides which, Dumbledore is frequently abrupt with Minerva. Some examples from GoF (sorry, lost the page numbers!) "'No,' said Dumbledore sharply." "'He will stay, Minerva, because he needs to understand,' said Dumbledore curtly."" Ummm! Poor McGonagall..and she's only trying to please! Is that how she is usually treated? She now appears to be a strict old lady, but how was she growing up? Popular? Nerdy? Outsider? ...Remember, that would have been about when Riddle was in School too. It could be Ever-so-lame McGonagall, it could even be Evil!McGonagall or...is it perhaps simply Outsider!McGonagall? Errol Who also wonders why Sirius gave Harry a lock pick for Christmas. From Malady579 at hotmail.com Sat Aug 31 00:19:49 2002 From: Malady579 at hotmail.com (malady579) Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2002 00:19:49 -0000 Subject: Abstemiousness with truth - the careful fantasy world of Potter In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43398 Dark Thirty wrote: >> Let me try to demonstrate my reading of Rowling like this - The so-called magical world of Harry Potter is, on one level, on perhaps the most fundamental level, unequivocally nothing more than the extended fantasy-world of an abused boy stuck in a closet.<< Me: While this is probably one of the most depressing views of the books, I must say that this is not the first time I have seen this reading of a book. In my British Lit class, we were required to read Frankenstein. It was an interesting book, and I read it the way I was expected and went to class expecting a typical breakdown from the class. My Lit professor listened to our opinions and views about reanimation, creation, love, and ugly people. Then he quietly said, ?Well there is another viewpoint about the book. Some fell the sea captain made it all up.? For some reason my stomach dropped, much like when I read this post, at the very idea that it was all in a lonely man?s head. Bored, staring off into the dark sea, which I am sure he did often, he dreamed of a man, a creature to talk to and hear his story. Having dreamed the story so much, the sea captain almost believed his fantasy as true and as completely possible. For some reason, this idea, this twist caught me that day. I guess because it was completely unexpected yet so completely plausible. Mankind loves to dream away their present conditions and elevate themselves to given thrones of greatness. Who would blame them either. The captain was lonely. Harry is neglected. Their only motivation is escapism. It is a depressing read of a book, but very human which is precisely what we do not want . We want the world to make sense. We want good to conquer evil. We want people to get what they deserve. We want the pure of heart to be protected and revered. We want Harry Potter to live. He has to or in a way our hopes and prays are in fact in vain and just ramblings. That is one of the main reasons we read books, or at least I do. To help balm the world away. If this series ends up with Harry waking up from a dream, I think many readers will be absolutely furious. Even the idea of Harry dying in the end crushes me. He has to live and has to win. He has to be one of the few parts of our lives that can be safe and protected and have everything ties up nicely and happily. While I really do not believe JKR is going that direction with the books, I do believe it is a viable interpretation. Fantasy world is just that. A world dreamed that does not exist. Any given circumstance can promote such imaginings. The reason this viewpoint works so well is that every problem that Harry has with his life with the Dursleys is solved in his magical world so well which you spelled out. What fantasy doesn?t? It completes that soul of the character and reader. Dark Thirty wrote: >> How is this possible? Are we to assume fate, a grossly misunderstood concept in my opinion, being myself something of a secular Calvinist, declares that Harry and the trio will succeed whether or not those around them attempt to keep them in the dark, to impose, in a way, ignorance upon them? Do we really believe Harry's successful encounters so far have been written beforehand, and the outcome assured? << Me: To say that the outcomes are left to fate gives credibility to Madame Trelawney?s brand of magic. If something is prewritten then it can be predicted. You just have to learn the language. And I love the phrase you used ?secular Calvinism.? Very fitting. Thank you for posting. It was wonderful food for thought today for me. Melody "For words, like Nature, half reveal and half conceal the Soul within." Tennyson From porphyria at mindspring.com Sat Aug 31 00:31:11 2002 From: porphyria at mindspring.com (porphyria_ash) Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2002 00:31:11 -0000 Subject: Snape, Lupin, Shack; was: Dirty!Harry and Stoned!Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43399 In reply to Dicentra's objection to Snape's offer to "drag the werewolf," Irene remarked: << Isn't it very telling that Snape is always judged by what he threatens to do, or what the other characters suspect he would want to do: killing Trevor, feeding poison to Harry, failing Gryffindors in Potions, feeding innocent people to Dementors etc. ? >> Dicentra retorted: << He didn't threaten to drag Lupin back to the castle, he announced it. >> And I answer: How do you distinguish between a threat and an announcement, especially when Snape is concerned? I had once begun the complete list of things that Snape threatens to do that he never actually does; it's fairly long. Since Irene has already mentioned several, and I seem to have misplaced my list, I'll just skip on to the next point in the logic. Snape is extremely theatrical. He operates by frightening, angering and manipulating people with a swish of black robes for dramatic effect. But apart from responding to Lockhart's request to demonstrate dueling techniques, he is never physically violent. In fact, when Snape does *not* think he has an audience he acts quite differently, quite a bit more decently, and every book has an example of this. I think we are supposed to read this evidence as a key to his character, given how many and how consistent are the hints to that effect. While I agree that his threat to feed Sirius to the Dementors and his similar viciousness to Lupin is ugly, there is no getting around the fact that when Snape really does have his enemy lying unconscious at his feet he behaves in a perfectly respectable manner. He does not do anything to injure Sirius' body, he does not do what he has threatened to do which is call over the Dementors, instead, he conjures up stretchers. We don't just have Snape's word for this; this is what Hermione and Harry witness as well. Lupin and Sirius really do come close to executing a criminal with their bare hands, but Snape, when given the opportunity, turns Sirius over to the MoM. And I cannot think of any ulterior motive for him to do so; I think Fudge would have been delighted to take delivery of a soul-sucked Sirius, and Snape himself admits he has no idea why the Dementors were retreating, so it's not like he saw a Patronus galloping around. Dicentra again: << And he would have gotten away with it, too, if it hadn't been for those meddling kids and their collective *Expelliarmus*. >> How do you know this? See, I find Sirius mistreating Snape's unconscious body much creepier since Snape can't fight or even argue back. He's completely vulnerable. Now Lupin, on the other hand, can at least struggle or attempt to hop if he has to. Plus the kids are there -- since Snape, at this point, thinks the Trio are going to follow him, he probably half-expected that they would argue with him before letting him commit any atrocities. But that still doesn't mean that Snape would have literally dragged him. I read most of what Snape says in the Shack as an expression of extreme anger before a live audience. But I think Irene is right to imply that we ought to judge Snape by what he actually has done. And what he actually has done is say ugly things and make threats, but somehow never physically do what he threatens. In any case, while I agree that Snape is a) a bully too and b) behaving so irrationally here that it's a great relief to Sirius when he's knocked out, nevertheless I see the head-scraping as icky and cruel especially for Sirius who believes he has the upper hand at this point and is rejoicing that he's about to be cleared. And he knows that Snape is not a Bad Guy on the level of Pettigrew, so he can't have the same "he's about to be dispatched anyway" attitude that Snape has to him and Lupin. He's just humiliating Snape for fun, which, while it might not make him look worse than Snape, it doesn't do anything to make him look better. ~Porphyria, who wanted to post about something other than Snape today, but it just didn't work out. From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Aug 31 00:50:32 2002 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2002 00:50:32 -0000 Subject: Abstemiousness with truth - the careful fantasy world of Potter In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43400 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "malady579" wrote: > Dark Thirty wrote: > > >> Let me try to demonstrate my reading of Rowling like this - Theso-called magical world of Harry Potter is, on one level, on perhaps the most fundamental level, unequivocally nothing more than the extended fantasy-world of an abused boy stuck in a closet.<< > > Me: > While this is probably one of the most depressing views of the books, I must say that this is not the first time I have seen this reading of a book. In my British Lit class, we were required to read Frankenstein. It was an interesting book, and I read it the way I was expected and went to class expecting a typical breakdown from the > class. My Lit professor listened to our opinions and views about > reanimation, creation, love, and ugly people. Then he quietly said, ?Well there is another viewpoint about the book. Some fell the sea captain made it all up.? For some reason my stomach dropped, muchlike when I read this post, at the very idea that it was all in alonely man?s head.<< The reading works only, if, as in Frankenstein, it is equivocal. If Rowling ever made it unambiguous, then it would be highly unsatisfying aesthetically, as it would be propping up a weak fictional device (information the hero could have used is kept from him by arbitrary means) with an even weaker one (it was all a dream.) Rowling seems aware of the arbitrariness of guarding information in the restricted section of the library, since so far Harry's attempts to penetrate it have yielded absolutely nothing of value as far as solving the mysteries are concerned. What good did the polyjuice do, after all? And of course the information on Nicholas Flamel could have been found in any ordinary library, Muggle or real life, since he is an historical figure. Pippin From lucky_kari at yahoo.ca Sat Aug 31 01:33:35 2002 From: lucky_kari at yahoo.ca (lucky_kari) Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2002 01:33:35 -0000 Subject: Dirty!Harry and Stoned!Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43401 -- In HPforGrownups at y..., "dicentra63" wrote: > OK. I went back and read Shrieking Shack again last night, and found > something rather interesting. I can buy the argument that Harry > didn't turn his wand on Pettigrew because the heat of the moment had > dissipated. But I found something even more interesting. Pettigrew > has been revealed, and now he's trying to find an ally: > > "Pettigrew knelt, trembling uncontrollably, and turned his head slowly > toward Harry. > > "'Harry ... Harry ... you look just like your father ... just like > him. ...' > > [Sirius rebukes him in all caps.] > > "'Harry,' whispered Pettigrew, shuffling toward him, hands > outstretched. 'Harry, James wouldn't have wanted me killed.... James > would have understood, Harry ... he would have shown me mercy....'" > > The next time Harry speaks is when he jumps in front of Pettigrew to > save him, on the next page. When he says he doesn't think his father > would have wanted Sirius and Remus to become killers. > > It would appear that *Peter* is the one who suggests to Harry what the > higher moral code is. Why would that hold any water for Harry? Why > would Peter's words persuade him that his father wouldn't have wanted > him killed? The narrator doesn't look into Harry's head during this > time, so there's no clue there. And not only that, as bboy pointed > out, the "he deserves it" sentiment isn't actually gone, it's just > been redirected at Azkaban instead of death, which if you ask me is > worse than death (and in many ways equals death, just more slowly). > > Has Harry actually chosen a higher moral code or has he just decided > to protect his parents' friends -- and to hell with the real traitor? > Ah, you beat me to it with the observation about Peter. :-) Still, I think I have something to add to the discussion. "Why would Peter's words hold any water for Harry?" I think it's very telling that Sirius and Lupin don't deny the truth of what Peter says. Instead, they "strode forwards, seized Pettigrew's shoulders and threw him backwards onto the floor. He sat there, twitching with terror, staring up at them." If I was Harry, I would take that (in combination with several other things) as confirmation of what Peter says. If Sirius and Lupin didn't know that James wouldn't have spared Peter, wouldn't they have snapped back at Peter on that point, as they did with all the others? Instead, they physically and violently tear Peter from Harry. No, I think they know darn right what James would have wanted, and don't care by this point. When Harry steps forward, it must have been as if James, who they were disregarding, was stepping forward and telling them what they knew all along. Certainly, they accept Harry's decision suspiciously quickly, for men completely convinced in what they were about to do. Sirius especially, all things considered. And neither contests Harry's belief in Peter at that point either. Furthermore, we have to remember who James Potter is to Harry. Harry has never met his father and can be accused by the unkind (Snape :-) of unadulterated worship of his heroically martyred parents. Harry's idea of his parents, I would suggest, is almost inseparable from his idea of Dumbledore, the book's near-personification of goodness (whether he was dissing the Slyths or not). And, I think Harry could easily have said what Dumbledore would want him to do. No wonder that the mention of his father gets him thinking along Dumbledore's lines. Thirdly, I would like to direct your attention towards Chapter Twelve: "The Patronus." I've always thought of this as the set-up for Harry's actions in the Shrieking Shack. The relevant passage is * * * * * Harry sat stunned for a moment at the idea of someone having their soul sucked out through their mouth. But then he thought of Black. "He deserves it," he said suddenly. "You think so?" said Lupin lightly. "Do you really think anyone deserves that?" "Yes," said Harry defiantly. "For ... for some things ..." * * * * * Lupin is "lightly" referring to the Dementors' kiss, but the exchange has a bearing on Harry's entire desire for revenge against Black, a desire which turned on Pettigrew. Harry's own ideas are to kill Black himself, not for the dementors to suck out his soul. Lupin unconsciously is challenging Harry in his unexamined rage. About the dementors' kiss. About private revenge. I can't see but that Rowling wrote this exchange as the prelude to the Shrieking Shack incident. And lastly but not least, wanting to kill a person in a rage is a very different matter indeed that actually seeing it done... and very cooly done at that, thanks to the Ever so Edgey Remus Lupin. Eileen, muttering something about Canon Colleges, and students who get "A"s on their oral exams by liberal use of the Imperius curse From porphyria at mindspring.com Sat Aug 31 02:55:58 2002 From: porphyria at mindspring.com (porphyria_ash) Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2002 02:55:58 -0000 Subject: Twins, Toons, Humor and Instinct In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43402 Abigail wrote a very interesting post about why criticizing the twins hits a nerve with some readers, and while I think her discussion of how to resolve the issue usefully points to the wide variety of interpretations people have, I still have to reply to her assessment about how we read whether JKR "approves" of a character or not. Abigail said: << See, I don't think the problem is whether we like or dislike a character, but whether JKR does, or rather whether she approves of that character's actions. I think the main problem plaguing most of the F&G defenders out there is not the fact that they find F&G's antics funny, but that JKR seems to. It is an author's job to pass moral judgement on the characters that he or she writes, to indicate to the readers in means of varying subtlety whether or not this character is doing a good thing or a bad thing. >> See, I disagree here. I think that the mark of a great author is that she can create characters who are complex enough that they provoke debate, and present enough of their behavior to let readers make their own decisions. Authors who hammer in a moral point tend to turn me off. I like JKR because I don't think she does this. If there was only one right answer to whether a character is doing something good or bad then discussion groups like this would have no purpose and reading would be boring. Plus, as Elkins pointed out a while ago (#39058), books would never age well if we had to agree with the author's moral perspective; great books have a habit of lasting hundreds or thousands of years and in that time our sense of good and evil shifts, but our love of the books doesn't. In any case, every reader is free to have his or her own moral criteria that might differ from the author's without invalidating anyone's perspective. For some reason I think this is more obvious when readers want to defend a character that the author does not appear to like. For instance, in my own interpretation, I don't think JKR likes Draco at all. I just don't get that vibe; I find his portrayal, as Elkins once described, lame. But there are legions of devoted readers who do like him, defend him, make him the hero of their fanfics, and so forth. And this alternate reading is a good thing, which JKR should be proud of, and it's also something this list usually takes for granted. On the other hand, I think it's riskier to criticize a character that JKR does basically like. We seem to have more vehement arguments when someone criticizes Dumbledore, Molly, any member of the Trio, or in this case the twins. I'm not sure why it is that some characters seem sacrosanct, especially when I think JKR has built flaws into every character. But I'm tempted to punt the issue back to one of readership; I think people get upset if their beloved characters get insulted because it feels like they themselves are being insulted. I admit I often feel that way in the face of criticism towards Snape, even though I consciously recognize that he's cruel, vindictive, jealous and a variety of other nasty qualities. I would certainly think it would be that much more true of people who identify with the obvious authorial favorites. Abigail continues: << In the Harry Potter books, there are several ways in which Rowling indicates to us her criticism of a character's actions. The most obvious one is to have Harry disapprove of said behaviour, another is to describe the character as unpleasant or disliked or physically unappealing, and a third is simply karma - bad things happen to bad people. >> I agree that these are some of the ways she does it, but that doesn't mean we as readers are limited to these ways. For instance, in the TTT incident, we know Harry approves of the twins actions, they are portrayed as jolly and amusing and they don't get much karmic punishment from this incident (actually they do: Molly yells at after Arthur finally tells her). But on the other hand we can look at Dudley's gagging and sputtering, Petunia's screaming, Vernon's desperate china-throwing and Arthur's "brandishing" of his wand and find the whole thing really painful to witness. JKR wrote the same words on the page that everyone is reading; some of us just interpret some parts as more significant or more palpable than others. << Now, I'm not suggesting that at every turn in the Harry Potter books, the bad are punished and the good are rewarded, because this is quite simply not the case. What I am saying is that JKR very clearly indicates to us who the good guys and the bad guys are. >> Like Fudge and Bagman? Like Crouch Sr. or Snape? Filch, perhaps? I think JKR's ethics are more complicated than this. I think there are a lot of things she finds funny, sympathetic or just plain pathetic but that she doesn't wholeheartedly endorse. For instance, I happen to find Crouch Sr.'s story utterly tragic because I think he winds up in such intolerable situations where no matter what he does, it's wrong. Where did he make his mistake? Was it sentencing his son to prison? Was it springing him out again? Was it keeping him under Imperio all those years? I marvel at JKR's ability to depict someone as making the wrong decisions for the right reasons -- or is it the other way around? Anyway, I don't see why the twins can't be a minor version of this. Yes, we can think they are funny and still recognize that their actions are not appropriate -- not mature, not fair, and someday likely to have dangerous consequences. This does not make JKR bad for "approving" of them, just very nuanced. As I think we recognize, she is fond of portraying "good" characters as actually rather grey, and like many of her readers, she has a wicked sense of humor that, while not squeaky-clean ethically, is still very human. And that's how I interpret the twins. ~Porphyria From dark30 at vcn.bc.ca Sat Aug 31 02:33:14 2002 From: dark30 at vcn.bc.ca (tbernhard2000) Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2002 02:33:14 -0000 Subject: Abstemiousness with truth - the careful fantasy world of Potter In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43403 Responding to Pippin, doffy and Malady, all of whom I thank for their posts Pippin > The reading works only, if, as in Frankenstein, it is equivocal. If > Rowling ever made it unambiguous, then it would be highly > unsatisfying aesthetically, as it would be propping up a weak > fictional device (information the hero could have used is kept > from him by arbitrary means) with an even weaker one (it was all > a dream.) The response to these books is phenomenal. It was when I asked myself why that I was struck by this line of thought regarding what, in fact, the canon represents. It's not theory at all, to me. Rather, some of the magical devices seem so particularly centred on salvaging an apparently hopeless situation - the Time Turner is a really good example of this, or Voldemort's convenient arrogance at the end of GoF - that they set off alarms in my head. It's not so much that Rowling should be read as I read her, but that she can be read thus, with no difficulty whatsoever. Nor do I think the fantasy world reading is the only reading - if it were, and if I believed it so, there would be absolutely no attraction to the books at all. As it is, the books succeed because, even though it is possible that Rowling "means" the magical world is a fantasy world, which doesn't in fact have to end at all, for I do not believe it will end in a waking up from a dream scene, but will be left ambiguous, the attention to detail, the creative energy put into the development of character within the books, almost as if they were extended character studies like Dickens' works, for example, is our test of belief, as readers. Like Potter, we live in a terrifying and horrible and dangerous world, which can often lie to us and much of which is hidden from us, or forbidden us, and often there's little we can do about things, that wouldn't bring great risk to ourselves. Like Potter, we have a fantasy world (the Potter books) that explain darkness, that provide a situation where our "gut feelings", like the scene in the second task to which I referred, are the most important thing. One scene that struck me as, however, relevatory is the 2 Harry part of that very Time Turner episode, the most transcendental moment of the series so far, bar none. It is through Harry's "imagining" that he finds his strength. Rowling seems here to be commenting quite directly on what I have described. With all the emotional tingles I felt as I read the passages, the alarm bells were not far in the distance. And remember, Harry at that point was also surrounded by Dementors, by insanity, as it were. I would say that that scene alone almost makes the Potter books "equivocal." >Harry's attempts to penetrate it have yielded absolutely nothing of >value as far as solving the mysteries are concerned. I wasn't thinking of the books in the restricted section when I posted this - rather of what it lead to. My lack of clarity. Sorry. dobby >I honestly, don't think this is where JKR is going with the story. I >think, in the end, we will be left with questions, but "Did it >happen?" "Was it real or fantasy?" won't be the questions. It's not that kind of fantasy world. There is no waking up. It is sustained, magically, like the unexplained ancient magic that protects the Dursley house. Malady >While I really do not believe JKR is going that direction with the >books, I do believe it is a viable interpretation. It's not a direction, but a level, if you will, a part of the books. It doesn't have to end with Harry's end, and probably won't. Your post reminded me of one more very significant "convenience" - that is, the slamming of the window when Hermione catches Skeeter. Now, at that very moment, Harry was being hugged by Molly, and remember what he was doing. darkthirty From southernscotland at yahoo.com Sat Aug 31 03:11:26 2002 From: southernscotland at yahoo.com (\lila phillips) Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 20:11:26 -0700 (PDT) Subject: predictions In-Reply-To: <1030756673.1296.24544.m12@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <20020831031126.3987.qmail@web14501.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 43404 I love reading these predictions! My daughter and I have one, sort of. Pardon if it's already been brought up. We think that the reason Book 5 has been delayed, delayed, delayed is because the author is trying to rework the story. So that Harry will live. See, she has had the ending written for a long, long time, supposedly. She's said (and I don't know where, sorry) that one of the themes of the book series is dealing with grief. And, hypothetically, parts of the Bible may be inspirational for her. We think that in her Original Draft, Harry dies in the ultimate sacrifice, taking down Voldemort. What an ending! But that now, she cannot bring herself to do this. I've heard that Sir Arthur Conan Doyle "killed off" Sherlock Holmes, and the readers demanded that the character be brought back. I'm sure our author knows this, as well. She never knew she'd be rich and famous. She never knew about the movie series then, or that so many kids and adults would hang on her every word (as we do here). She's said herself that she was depressed while writing at least some of it, and that it was first written to please only herself. She's got to know what reaction she'd get if she kills off our little green-eyed hero. I don't think she wants to break all the little (and big) hearts out there. She also doesn't want the fans to storm her new castle with torches (I'll be using one with batteries, thank you). Book 4 is so very dark, already. How much more, how much darker, can it get? Just a theory, mind you. Brought on by sensory- deprivation and JKR desperation, undoubtedly. lilahp (who knows of a bunch of good ghostwriters - right here - if JKR is stuck for plot twists) __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes http://finance.yahoo.com From golden_faile at yahoo.com Sat Aug 31 04:21:12 2002 From: golden_faile at yahoo.com (golden faile) Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 21:21:12 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Outsider!Snape (NOT!) (Re: Bully!Sirius, Snape's Grudge) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020831042112.61455.qmail@web14610.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 43405 potions_student wrote: Then Irene responded: > Maybe you are right. Actually I really hope that's the right reading > of Dumbledore's behaviour. Because otherwise he was just > saying to Snape "Yes, Sirius is still my golden boy and I'll choose > him over you any day". Hard to reconcile with Snape's loyalty > the next year. I think that Dumbledore believes that Snape takes himself a little too seriously. Dumbledore believes in taking chances and giving people the benfit of the doubt. Snape is always so controlling and suspicious. I do, however,believe that Dumbledore trusts Snape. He is just trying to get him to be a bit more cooperative, so that he can work with the others that he might need in the hard times to come. Laila 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, a website etc.? Send it to HPFGU-Announcements. Movie-related? Book-movie comparison? 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 -- mods at hpfgu.org.uk Unsubscribing? Email hpforgrownups-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com ____________________________________________________________ Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. --------------------------------- Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From prefectmarcus at yahoo.com Sat Aug 31 05:10:05 2002 From: prefectmarcus at yahoo.com (prefectmarcus) Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2002 05:10:05 -0000 Subject: Abstemiousness with truth - the careful fantasy world of Potter In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43406 If this is all the daydreamings of Harry, how do you explain Chapter one of Book one? This kid is imagining all this back story with details that become important later? All this intricate detail that fits smoothly together is just an abused child's fantasy life? I am sorry, but I can't accept that. That is unless you are prepared to tell me that he keeps daydreaming and daydreaming and daydreaming the same scenario over and over and over again until he gets it right and all the details worked out. I'm sorry. The theory is interesting, but not very plausible IMO. Marcus From saitaina at wizzards.net Fri Aug 30 18:54:31 2002 From: saitaina at wizzards.net (Saitaina) Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 11:54:31 -0700 Subject: Harry Potter and the Quest for reading References: Message-ID: <001901c25056$ad7f3600$7b4e28d1@oemcomputer> No: HPFGUIDX 43407 Alright, I wrote this for a message board regarding the 20/20 (American news magazine telly show) segment on Harry Potter. Most of it has been said over and over again but I felt the need to share.---- I will admit right now, I am a Harry Potter reader. I am also a woman in my early twenties. Just getting those two facts out there right now. I've have been a reader since just after GoF (Goblet of Fire) and have seen the height of this controversy and been caught in the crossfire. To get right to the point (yeah right), I don't see how the banning of books, ANY books, not just Harry Potter, could be helpful to children. I understand the concerns some have over the element of magick in the books, but banning a child from reading something just for what's inside that does not help their development. Yes it would be wonderful if our children would grow up with the same beliefs and morals and common sense we have, but that's not always possible. Children pick up things from every media, books, television, movies, radio and just general human interaction. Blocking them from that which offends us will not stop them from learning about it. I believe in giving children equal opportunities to allow them to make their own choices of what they believe in and what morals they hold to. Allowing a child to read Harry Potter will not make them witches (wizzards, sorceress, warlocks)any more then reading the bible would make them a Christian, but giving a child the opportunity to read both would give them a better view of the world. Now before the Harry Potter fans start yelling, I'm not touting the series as handbook for witchcraft. Far from it. The series has nothing to do with the religions of wicca/Satanism. In fact the books have nothing to do with religion. Period. Many will argue that if you ban Harry you must ban Naria, Lord of the Rings, Mary Poppins, The Wizard of Oz, Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty (er, basically ANY fairy tale), The Mists of Avalon (Again, the whole series would just have to go), and many, many more. Almost any of us as a child has read this books. Many of us have read several or all of them. I would hate to think that we were all Satanists running around pledging ourselves to the devil just because of a children's book. Harry Potter is much more then just a book about witchcraft. It's a story of growing up. And all the travails that comes with it. It's a story of moral choices. Voldemort himself is a great example of what hatred can do to someone and the choices one can make. Discrimination is a big theme. Hagrid and Draco Malfoy both show sides of this as does Hermione Granger and the Dursleys. Abuse and escapism are themes I most identify with. Every abused child out there dreams of one day being free of their abuser and they can relate to Harry going off to Hogwarts, going home. Friendship and courage are granted themes. One cannot think of Gryffindor House without knowing of their bravery. Our three (or four or five) favorite Gryffindors show that not all friendships are perfect, but it's something you can depend on when in need. Past mistakes is a theme any adult can relate to. How many of us see ourselves in Severus Snape? We all have made bad choices and wish we could turn back the clock to change them. Not many of us have gone so far as to do something as severe as becoming a Death Eater but we still regret what we have done and can relate to Severus who is still trying to make it right. There are many other themes, Betrayal, Greed and terrorism. So many more that I won't go into here but they are there, if you look beyond the magick. To cut children off from such lessons of life, even if they are just between the two covers of a book, is to deny them all of which shapes and creates our world. There is a great kaleidoscope of humanity here, much more then just Accio and The Draught of Living Death. Saitaina **** Gandalf dead. Everyone morose. In attempt to cheer up Fellowship, Legolas took off all his clothes and performed scenes from Silmarillion: The Musical. Everyone still morose. Legolas ponced off to have 3,000-year-old elf prince sulk. -Peregrine Took's Very Secret Diary Oh hell, someone wake me when my happy ending starts... I wouldn't want to miss the flying pigs and ice skating demons. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From eloiseherisson at aol.com Sat Aug 31 06:59:55 2002 From: eloiseherisson at aol.com (eloiseherisson at aol.com) Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2002 02:59:55 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Snape, Lupin, Shack; was: Dirty!Harry and Stoned!Harry Message-ID: <43.10d27f98.2aa1c36b@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 43408 Porphyria: > but Snape, when given the opportunity, turns Sirius over to the MoM. > And I cannot think of any ulterior motive for him to do so; I think > Fudge would have been delighted to take delivery of a soul-sucked > Sirius, and Snape himself admits he has no idea why the Dementors > were retreating, so it's not like he saw a Patronus galloping around. I'd like to agree with this. You know I would. But......... First of all, the Dementors had been put to flight and Snape may have had no means of recalling them. I personally suspect they weren't coming back in a hurry. Secondly, I think Snape may have seen the dramatic potential of bringing in Sirius intact, as it were, of personally handing over his prisoner for punisment. Sure, Fudge would have been delighted to take delivery of a soul-sucked Sirius (that's a tongue-twister!), but it's not like anyone important (as far as he was concerned) witnessed the events leading up to it, saw his part in it, even knew, beyond, his word, that he had been instrumental in bringing it about. Actually, something has just struck me. How did Snape know that Sirius *hadn't* already had his soul sucked out? And the kids, too, for that matter? As you say, he was knocked out at the time and didn't witness what went on. The others were all unconscious, which I should imagine is just how someone who had recently had a soulectomy would appear. Plus the Dementors' retreat could indicate that they had completed their task. Isn't that what one would automatically think, waking up to find an unconscious criminal and retreating Dementors? Even so, the provision of a stretcher for Sirius, in whatever state Snape believed him to be, is a much greater indication of consideration and respect than the way Sirius treated him whan unconscious. And Sirius is the one who talks about judging a man by how he treats his inferiors. How about how one treats those who are completely powerless and at one's mercy? Unfortunately I can't check the canon for a hole in any of this as a child has had the audacity to remove it for bed-time reading! Ouch! Just spotted a hole I didn't want to see. Appearances, appearances! Snape was taking Sirius up to the castle and would want to be seen in a good light - akin to the ever-so-reasonable way he talks to Fudge about Harry. See how noble I am in victory, and all that. Sirius had no reason to care what anyone thought of his behaviour, except possibly for Harry and he may have realised there was no love lost there. The counter-argument is, of course, that Snape really was being noble in what he thought was his victory - which would make subsequent events even harder to bear. Phew! Eloise [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From jferer at yahoo.com Sat Aug 31 07:55:49 2002 From: jferer at yahoo.com (jferer) Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2002 07:55:49 -0000 Subject: What Makes a Viable Population In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43409 Marcus:"Look at the goods bought and sold in Diagon Alley. How many require large centers of manufacture to create? Ollivander's wands? Since he makes them all, that rather points to a small population wouldn't you say?" Marcus:"Looking at Diagon Alley, I don't see the equivalent of a Sears, JC Penney, Target, Walmart, Krogers, Marks and Spencers, etc." Agreed. The wizard world appears to have a 19th Century economy. Marcus:"The only thing that comes close to a car dealership is Quality Quidditch Supplies with its one display broom in the window." The point of mentioning cars is that economies stretch far, and are interdependent. Even if they aren't based on heavy industry, they are based on trade. Marcus:"They are almost all little shops run by the same people who make the goods sold." I disagree. It's mostly a 19th Century economy, not a medieval one. We see evidence of that in the existence of many brand names which are known all over the wizard world. Madame Malkin's, for example, might sew robes from scratch (they don't appear to, since Harry and Draco are getting theirs altered) but there's no sign of a loom there. Marcus:"It is like a flea market. Some shops sell what they make (Olivander's). Some shops sell on consignment from cottage industries (QQS)." Well, small industries, anyway, and cottage; there is no sign of large heavy industry. Marcus:"Magical society really looks like society from before the industrial revolution. There small villages of less than a hundred made do with what they had. You had a few people who travelled and traded, but most goods were all locally produced." We don't see small villages of a hundred making do with what they had. We have "national" brands like Bertie Botts' and Old Ogden's Firewhiskey (and many others). We have locomotives. We have Gladrags Wizardwear, London, Paris, Hogsmeade. We have problems with cheap imported cauldrons, and standardized cauldron sizes. These are all constructs of a more sophisiticated economy. We have a 20th century news/entertainment industry (The Daily Prophet,WWN, professional Quidditch). The wizard world in Britain is still small, very small, even at 20,000. It almost doesn't work at that figure. The problem here is that, if Hogwarts is the only wizarding school in Britain, then the population of the wizarding world is nailed to the student census. If there were other schools, or if most wizards were trained up in apprenticeships, then the population problem would go away. The population could be anything. One problem I have with apprenticeships is that the wizard world seems to be a literate one, with a newspaper, magazines, and books. I also don't like to imagine a wizard world with that kind of class structure, where a small elite is educated and the rest not. I'm sure JKR doesn't believe in that. Of course, that's not canonical, that's gut, and doesn't prove anything. Thanks for the debate, Jim Ferer From eloiseherisson at aol.com Sat Aug 31 08:21:04 2002 From: eloiseherisson at aol.com (eloiseherisson at aol.com) Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2002 04:21:04 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Outsider!Snape (NOT!) (Re: Bully!Sirius, Snape's Grudge) Message-ID: <35.2c2b739c.2aa1d670@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 43410 Porophyria: > For instance, I interpret this line > > "Unless you are suggesting that Harry and Hermione are able to be in > two places at once, I'm afraid I don't see any point in troubling > them further" > > as telling Snape, "They used the time turner to help Sirius escape, > they had my approval," as Pippin says, but not so much as a warning > to keep this quiet as open mockery: "They used the time turner to > help Sirius escape, they had my approval, and there isn't a single > thing you can do about it. So there!" I don't think there is any > question of whether Snape's accusation of Harry being involved is > illogical: I think Snape can probably think of a dozen magical > reasons for how Harry and Hermione could be, or appear to be, in two > places at once and Dumbledore knows this. I think it was I who originally proposed the coded message interpretation of this line (with abject apologies to Pippin if it was her!) The way I understand it, this interpretation is premised on the fact that there are *not* a dozen magical ways in which HH could, or appear to be, in two places at once. The idea originally came up in response to the question of what on earth Dumbledore was up to, virtually giving the game away like that. If there were a number of other ways that they could have done it, then surely Fudge would have been aware them too and Dumbledore would have been risking ringing alarm bells by raising the topic of bi-location. It was only safe for Dumbledore to give a coded warning to Snape to shut up if he and he alone understood the message. If, in other words the way which Snape knew they were able to be in two places at once was the only way - and it was so unlikely and so impossible that a student would have access to that way that Fudge would not suspect it. I'm not taking you up on the nature of Snape and Dumbledore's relationship as a whole, but I really don't think that this incident is an example of open mockery. Eloise [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From katthekat679 at hotmail.com Sat Aug 31 08:54:24 2002 From: katthekat679 at hotmail.com (crumpetmcvitie) Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2002 08:54:24 -0000 Subject: Predictions... and more predictions, oh what fun! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43411 Hmm - just been reading some of these predictions. Some of them are pretty logical, others are kinda insane (as if the author was a little chemically challenged at the time?) Thought I'd add my tuppence worth anyway! Got to agree with the Death of Dumbledore prediction. Many people seem to think it'll be Ron who's the first to pop his clogs, but all we know is that it'll be someone who's close to Harry. Let's face it, the plot would ultimately twist and darken if the only person whom Voldemort feared was no longer in the picture. Just a theory and it'll probably be wrong, but anyhoo... Love triangles. Hmm. Again, Harry's growing up so these are inevitable. Ron and Hermione seem destined from the way things have progressed in GoF (remember Ron's jealousy with regards to Viktor?). On the other hand, Hermione DEFINITELY seems a little enamoured with Harry. Hermione and Malfoy? Unlikely but always possible, especially if Draco undergoes some kind of personal epiphany. But for those who think Harry and Malfoy are going to get it on, Puh- Lease.... I know these are modern times and society's a lot more tolerant of alternate lifestyles, but remember this is still a series originally intended for children of ALL ages. I somehow doubt Ms. Rowling will be introducing such a controversial topic into her kiddy- friendly books. (Especially since homosexuality is still a no-no topic in sex education classes in British schools.) Ta-daaaaaah! And now of course I'm blatantly going to be proved wrong on every single count when the next book is released... Oh well, I live in hope that this will be before I die of old age? "crumpetmcvitie" From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Sat Aug 31 10:55:13 2002 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (bboy_mn) Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2002 10:55:13 -0000 Subject: Wizards and Magicians in School Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43412 OK, I realize I've been shooting my mouth off with wild speculations about student and wizard populations. Some of which I still stand by. For example: I still say the JKR saying Hogwarts has an enrollment of 1,000; is not a statement of absolute student population, but typical or average. I speculated that typically 1,000 means 600 to 1,400. Someone who's name will not be mentioned (cough:Gery Wolf:cough) said that the plus/minus 40% was way too much (not a direct quote). I check the undergraduate enrollment at University of Minnesota - Twin Cities campus, and enrollment has fluctuated 32% in the last 20 years (peak 1982/valley 1994). Give a very stable school with a very stable state population, the 32% figure makes me stand firmly by my plus/minus 40% number. I admit that still doesn't help us determine the current number of students, but given the apparent class sized of Harry's year, it would seem reasonable that enrollment is down. The famous number 20, which the person who will not be named (cough:Gery Wolf:cough) mathematically stomp on (in a friendly way). I still stand by my statement that 20 cauldrons or 20 brooms does not equal 20 students. However, even accepting that, the numbers still can't be completely resolve. To the point- This brings us to the multiple campus theory, which I can't quite buy give JKR's statement that the are no other wizarding schools. I've given more thought to the multiple campus theory, and have concluded I can only buy it with some variations to the basic theory. So, here's my variation to the theory, which is not necessary original, but I think I added some minor twists. Rowling says there are no other Wizardry/Witchcraft school in Britain, so I say that they are NOT Wizarding school, they are instead, magician schools. Think magician as in technician. These are similar to trade schools. I know other people have already thought of this, but I thought I would add my thoughts to the discussion. Here is how I see it. First, I'm don't think when students graduate from Hogwarts they get a certificate from the Ministry of Magic that says you are now a fully qualified, license, registered, certified wizard. I think the qualification is in the education, like having a degree from Harvard, that education carries weight and commands respect. These students and their education represent the best of the best. The Harvard of the wizard world. (Would that be the Cambridge of the wizard world to people in Britain?) True, when they graduate, they are legally adult wizards, but that's an age thing, not education. Now to all the missing children. They are in Magician (think technician) schools. In these school they don't get advanced subjects like arithmacy, wizard's history, or muggle studies. They get charms, spells, potions, and basic transfiguration. In some cases there may be elective classes that allow you to specialize in practical fields like Herbology, Care of Magical Creatures or advanced studies in the basic four. It's basic magic and specialized appliable technical knowledge. I envision the equivalent of 3 yrs of Hogwarts training makes you a magician apprentice. Five years training makes you a magician journeyman. From there on, you gain your credibility and validation through real life practical applied experience and demonstrated skill. You are still capable of going as far in life as your talent will take you, you simple don't have the Hogwarts/Harvard/Cambridge type credentials. 3 yr Magician Apprentice- basic unskilled labor - Stan Shunpike - Knight Bus conductor. 5 yr Magician Journeyman skilled labor force - the people who do the manual labor part of making broom, sewing gowns, warehousing potion ingredients, manufacturing quills, formulating inks, printing newspaper, occasionally rising to lower/middle management or starting their own business, perhaps even becoming successfully entrepreneurs, etc... A 5 year Journeyman program would turn out a pretty substantial magician. This is someone who would have a very high degree of functional magical knowledge, and certainly would be a competent desirable employee. 7 yr Hogwarts Wizards and Witches- Highly skill, Middle/Upper management, business owners, entrepreneurs, adventurers, Aurors, government, etc... The ONLY school that turns out fully train, fully qualified, NEWT verified, seven year trained wizards and witches, hence, the only true school of Wizardry and Witchcraft. This certainly allows us to have multiple schools while at the same time having only one school of Wizardry and Witchcraft. This certainly allows us to expand the wizarding population to a pretty substantial size. While there is no canon to support this, it is a reasonable explaination that allows us to resolve the most common conflicts. And, it very closely mimics the UK educational system where students are allowed to quit when they are age 16 (journeyman) after completing the first qualifications tests (A levels (or whatever) or in our case OWLS). A magician journeyman who has taken his OWLS has some documented proof of his knowledge and ability, that would make it easy for him to get a job. Keep in mind that we are dealing with a somewhat backward society. Since, in this behind the times society, there are no universities, the extra two years of Hogwarts becomes the equivalent of a university education in our modern society. Five years being the luxury of middle class, and the 3 yr being the ordinary working man education. I think this makes more sense than multiple campuses of Hogwarts. That's my story and I'm sticking too it. bboy_mn From pen at pensnest.co.uk Sat Aug 31 15:27:02 2002 From: pen at pensnest.co.uk (Pen Robinson) Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2002 16:27:02 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Predictions... and more predictions, oh what fun! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <19589E0E-BCF6-11D6-9483-0030654DED6A@pensnest.co.uk> No: HPFGUIDX 43413 So... predictions, indeed. Gotta go along with the death of Dumbledore, somewhere in book 7 is my guess. I rather expect Something Terrible (in the dying line) to happen to Hagrid, too. Eventually, Ron will notice that he *likes* Hermione. She, being smart, will already know by then. Neither of them will die, nor will Harry. Snape, Sirius and Lupin - I worry about these three. Don't think they will all make it through alive, but quite who will save whose life (etc) is a puzzle. I'd rather like to see Snape and Sirius required to work as a team. I'd quite like Sirius to die in the defence of Severus, which would *really* irritate the latter, heh heh. Don't want Lupin to die, but he's definitely vulnerable. Neville will Come Good in a big way and will be able to mete out suitable punishment to whoever tortured his parents. I cherish the hope that he is the Heir of Gryffindor, if such a person exists, but I don't actually predict it. Bill and/or Charlie Weasley will teach DADA/CoMC at Hogwarts. The further assistance of Dobby will (sigh) be essential. Harry will at some point need to know what to do with asphodel and wormwood, will have urgent need of a bezoar, and will also have a use for the alternate names of aconite. Pen From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Aug 31 15:43:14 2002 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2002 15:43:14 -0000 Subject: Outsider!Snape (NOT!) (Re: Bully!Sirius, Snape's Grudge) In-Reply-To: <35.2c2b739c.2aa1d670@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43414 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., eloiseherisson at a... wrote: > Porophyria: > > > For instance, I interpret this line > > > > "Unless you are suggesting that Harry and Hermione are able to be in two places at once, I'm afraid I don't see any point in troubling them further" > > > > as telling Snape, "They used the time turner to help Sirius escape, they had my approval," as Pippin says, but not so much as a warning to keep this quiet as open mockery: "They used the time turner to help Sirius escape, they had my approval, and there isn't a single thing you can do about it. So there!" I don't think there is any question of whether Snape's accusation of Harry being involved is illogical: I think Snape can probably think of a dozen magical reasons for how Harry and Hermione could be, or appear to be, in two places at once and Dumbledore knows this. > Eloise: > The way I understand it, this interpretation is premised on the fact that there are *not* a dozen magical ways in which HH could, or appear to be, in two places at once. The idea originally came up in response to the question of what on earth Dumbledore was up to, virtually giving the game away like that. If there were a number of other ways that they could have done it, then > surely Fudge would have been aware them too and Dumbledore would have been risking ringing alarm bells by raising the topic of bi-location.<< Thus the twinkle in Dumbledore's eyes. He knows that Fudge has all the facts at his disposal. The Ministry issued the Time Turner in the first place. With a little thought and a little digging, Fudge could solve the mystery, were he not distracted by the raving wizard screaming and spitting beside him, the prospective embarrassment of having to explain that the Ministry has let Sirius escape again and Buckbeak too, and the absurdity of the idea that the deranged youngster lying in bed, just recovering from a Dementor attack and obviously Confunded as well, could have had anything to do with it. Dumbledore's mockery is aimed squarely at Cornelius Fudge. Pippin who is pretty sure she posted about that coded message back when dinosaurs ruled the earth, but is happy to cede credit to Eloise if this is not the case. From porphyria at mindspring.com Sat Aug 31 15:58:55 2002 From: porphyria at mindspring.com (Porphyria) Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2002 11:58:55 -0400 Subject: Snape and various Infimary conversations in PoA Message-ID: <8D7DA5E1-BCFA-11D6-A294-000393465128@mindspring.com> No: HPFGUIDX 43415 I'm combining a couple of replies to Eloise. I originally said: > > but Snape, when given the opportunity, turns Sirius over to the MoM. > > And I cannot think of any ulterior motive for him to do so; I think > > Fudge would have been delighted to take delivery of a soul-sucked > > Sirius, and Snape himself admits he has no idea why the Dementors > > were retreating, so it's not like he saw a Patronus galloping around. And Eloise replied: > First of all, the Dementors had been put to flight and Snape may have had > no > means of recalling them. I personally suspect they weren't coming back in > a > hurry. Yes, but he didn't make any attempt at all. He originally speaks of calling them over, but he doesn't actually try this. We know they aren't coming back, but he has no idea of what's going on. Apparently he just watches them go and carries on. > Secondly, I think Snape may have seen the dramatic potential of bringing > in > Sirius intact, as it were, of personally handing over his prisoner for > punisment. Sure, Fudge would have been delighted to take delivery of a > soul-sucked Sirius (that's a tongue-twister!), but it's not like anyone > important (as far as he was concerned) witnessed the events leading up to > it, > saw his part in it, even knew, beyond, his word, that he had been > instrumental in bringing it about. Well, as you point out yourself, bringing back an unconscious man looks an awful lot like bringing back a soul-sucked man (perhaps Snape has some means of telling the difference; I don't have an answer for that one). He' s still personally handing over the prisoner to the law, pretty much the same presentation value. Point being, I don't see where Snape was going for dramatic potential here. As he later says to Fudge he wants Sirius to be soul-sucked right away, so I don't think he's expecting Sirius to give some sort of dramatic testimony beforehand. He certainly doesn't want Sirius as any kind of witness. Fudge himself implies that Harry will later serve as a witness if the Daily Prophet wants an interview, so they both imagine that base being covered by a far more prestigious person. Furthermore, his main conversation with Fudge always strikes me for its *lack* of dramatic potential, especially given Snape. You remark: > Appearances, appearances! Snape was taking Sirius up to the castle and > would > want to be seen in a good light - akin to the ever-so-reasonable way he > talks > to Fudge about Harry. See how noble I am in victory, and all that. Sirius > had > no reason to care what anyone thought of his behaviour, except possibly > for > Harry and he may have realised there was no love lost there. > > The counter-argument is, of course, that Snape really was being noble in > what > he thought was his victory - which would make subsequent events even > harder > to bear. Phew! Yeah, that is my counter-argument. Well, perhaps more 'reasonable' than 'noble,' but along the same lines. What strikes me about Snape's first conversation with Fudge in the infirmary is Snape's honesty and matter-of-factness. [I remember others have characterized this conversation as 'oily,' but I just don't hear it that way.] You'd think he' d be bragging about his prowess or at least buttering Fudge up in the hope of insuring that medal, but he's actually very modest. When Fudge asks him how he got the bump on the head, he immediately tells them it was the children, which you would think would be a little embarrassing for him to admit. Of course he quickly explains their relative innocence...:-) Likewise, when Fudge asks him if he knows why the Dementors were retreating, he concedes he has no idea, and his reply also indicates that he has admitted he was knocked out for a significant portion of the events. He's not quite self-effacing, but he's not wrenching it for all it's dramatic potential either. (Imagine the wild tale about heroically dispelling the Dementors that Lockhart would have fabricated were he in the same place.) Eerily, he's just being truthful. What also strikes me about this conversation is that Snape does in fact use the audience with Fudge to bang on his very favorite drum about how Harry gets too many privileges. This, to me, sounds more flatly honest than either wise, ingratiating or politic. Everyone knows the politically correct attitude to express is one of fondness and support for Harry Potter (even Lucius recommends this). You would think if Snape were either *trying* to sound noble (i.e. faking it, hamming it up) or at least trying to cement his new chumminess with Fudge (i.e. sucking up) that he'd be smart enough to not complain about Harry, or at least stop the second Fudge says "we've all got a bit of a blind spot where he's concerned," but no, Snape goes right on arguing his case. I can't help but think Snape's "ever-so-reasonable" manner is not an act, but a calmer version of how he really feels. Especially since the words he expresses here do not clash with any of Snape's previous actions; on the contrary, of course we've known all along that Snape does want Harry reined in for his own protection, he's just usually more angry in the way he says it. So apart from the fact that Snape is being very polite with Fudge, nothing in the substance of what he actually says sounds to my ear calculated to make him appear in an ideal light. While we're in the infirmary, Dumbledore later says to Snape: > > "Unless you are suggesting that Harry and Hermione are able to be in > > two places at once, I'm afraid I don't see any point in troubling > > them further" And Eloise interpreted: > The way I understand it, this interpretation is premised on the fact that > there are *not* a dozen magical ways in which HH could, or appear to be, > in > two places at once. The idea originally came up in response to the > question > of what on earth Dumbledore was up to, virtually giving the game away like > that. If there were a number of other ways that they could have done it, > then > surely Fudge would have been aware them too and Dumbledore would have been > risking ringing alarm bells by raising the topic of bi-location. > > It was only safe for Dumbledore to give a coded warning to Snape to shut > up > if he and he alone understood the message. If, in other words the way > which > Snape knew they were able to be in two places at once was the only way - > and > it was so unlikely and so impossible that a student would have access to > that > way that Fudge would not suspect it. Well, I agree that that remark is calculated to send a message to Snape that Fudge won't understand. Is that the main point you and Pippin were making? I think that this is probably true, and since Fudge is basically an idiot, I think there is plenty of wiggle room for Dumbledore to toss a hint at Snape without having anything click in Fudge's mind. Surely we can all agree that Snape is better at putting two and two together than Fudge! But I too am basing my interpretation on the assumption that Snape could figure something out that Fudge couldn't. See, whether there are a dozen (what I originally suggested) or merely one way in which H&H could have rescued Sirius, I still say that Dumbledore is letting Snape know that Harry had his knowledge and approval in doing it. And while you can certainly interpret this as Dumbledore simply letting Snape know what the deal is, I feel that, in the context of Snape freaking out and Dumbledore acting like he's enjoying himself, eyes a-twinkle, it comes across IMO as virtually mocking. It's not open mockery in the sense that anyone else is supposed to understand, it's private mockery between just these two. Snape *can't* do anything about it now since Sirius has already disappeared, and since I don't actually think that Snape would want to get Dumbledore in trouble with the Ministry over it, he's left to do nothing but storm off. So Dumbledore's comment has the same effect as his previous one about his memory, it utterly stifles Snape which, while merciful for everyone else, is still rather cruel to Snape and a cavalier way to treat someone who will risk their life for you later on. But to repeat my point from before, this, ironically, does point to the degree of trust between them that they can clash to this extent and still be confident in each other when some dark force opposes both of them. ~Porphyria From porphyria at mindspring.com Sat Aug 31 16:56:35 2002 From: porphyria at mindspring.com (Porphyria) Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2002 12:56:35 -0400 Subject: Outsider!Snape (NOT!) (Re: Bully!Sirius, Snape's Grudge) Message-ID: <9BC2F2D2-BD02-11D6-A294-000393465128@mindspring.com> No: HPFGUIDX 43416 I interpreted this line as Dumbledore mocking Snape: >"Unless you are suggesting that Harry and Hermione are > able to be in two places at once, I'm afraid I don't see any point > in troubling them further" And Pippin and Eloise agreed that this was actually Dumbledore sending a coded message to Snape to keep him from pushing the matter any further in front of Fudge. Pippin said: > Thus the twinkle in Dumbledore's eyes. He knows that Fudge > has all the facts at his disposal. The Ministry issued the Time > Turner in the first place. With a little thought and a little digging, > Fudge could solve the mystery, were he not distracted by the > raving wizard screaming and spitting beside him, the > prospective embarrassment of having to explain that the Ministry > has let Sirius escape again and Buckbeak too, and > the absurdity of the idea that the deranged youngster lying in > bed, just recovering from a Dementor attack and obviously > Confunded as well, could have had anything to do with > it. > > Dumbledore's mockery is aimed squarely at Cornelius Fudge. I agree with you that Dumbledore is sending a coded message to Snape saying "I helped Harry free Black with the Time Turner, so pipe down already in front of the Minister." And perhaps in Dumbledore's mind he is being a bit condescending towards the befuddled Fudge. But Snape is in no position to appreciate the clever trick Dumbledore has played on the silly ol' Minister. Snape is on Fudge's side here. They both want desperately to see Sirius dispatched. So if Dumbledore outsmarted Fudge, then he outsmarted Snape too. And the only difference is that Snape is sharp enough to realize he's been outsmarted, but Fudge isn't. So if I think that if Snape interprets Dumbledore's remark correctly then he can't help but experience it as a betrayal since it so obviously indicates that Dumbledore sided with Harry and Sirius over Snape and Fudge. And when someone sends you a coded message that they've betrayed you, that's IMO basically mockery. Maybe I am being too hard on Dumbledore, but at this point Sirius and Buckbeak are safely on their way, Fudge can be counted on to be dimwitted, and all AD has to worry about is making sure Fudge gets rid of the Dementors. It seems to me that if he wanted to he could have taken Snape aside and tried to say something reassuring, but he doesn't bother. Maybe he thinks it's a lost cause at this point in the evening. But it still strikes me as cavalier his being chipper in the face of Snape's obvious distress, and being happier to let him storm off than to try to make any attempt to calm him. ~Porphyria, who still doesn't know why webview thinks it's a good idea to breaks lines where she puts apostrophes From eloiseherisson at aol.com Sat Aug 31 17:44:37 2002 From: eloiseherisson at aol.com (eloiseherisson at aol.com) Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2002 13:44:37 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Outsider!Snape (NOT!) (Re: Bully!Sirius, Snape's Grudge) Message-ID: <31.2c58e528.2aa25a85@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 43417 > Pippin > who is pretty sure she posted about that coded message back > when dinosaurs ruled the earth, but is happy to cede credit to > Eloise if this is not the case. > You're probably right, as I think the dinosaurs were on the way out when I joined! I *think* I did think of it and post it independently some time ago - perhaps it's one of those cases of parallel evolution! I'd better give you those abject apologies, then! Eloise [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From sphause at earthlink.net Sat Aug 31 18:41:29 2002 From: sphause at earthlink.net (williamhause2000) Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2002 18:41:29 -0000 Subject: Predictions In-Reply-To: <20020830200402.26414.qmail@web12905.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43418 Wow! That makes so much sense it scares me. I hope you're wrong about Ron dying however; It would be such a downer if any of the trio dies that I don't think JKR will do that. I can see Harry and Ginny becoming an item and then Ginny will die. Has anyone predicted the release of book 5 sometime this year? I wonder if that one will come true. At this rate there may never be a book 7. I think Voldemort will die at Harry's hand never to return because book 7 is the final book and we need closure. I don't see JKR trying to leave book 7 open for a sequal. Some have predicted that Ron will switch to the dark side. I think that is likely and has been foreshadowed. He will come back to the good side and enable Harry to win over Voldemort in the end. I believe Dumbledore will die because of all the foreshadowing. Dumbledore makes comments to the effect that death is welcomed after living a long life. Many allusions to Dumbledore's excessive age are made in the books. Dumbledore will die. That means someone will take over as head master. It should be a major character who is currently a professor. That only leaes Snape and McGonagall. A common theme in the books is don't judge a book by it's cover. Many characters that appear good end up evil. I think Snape will be the opposite. Snape's harsh treatment of Harry is his way of strengthing Harry and developing his character. I liked doffy99's prediction that Hagrid will become a wizard. Now that he has been exonerated he deserves to become one. I think Malfoy is to Harry as Snape was to James (Potter). I think Malfoy's fate will parallel Snapes. > My prediction regarding Ron's fate: > In Book 5 or 6, Ron and Hermoine become an item. Harry > and Ginny will also become an item(I am *such* a fan > of the Harry/Ginny scenario. Always go with the > underdog, I say). > > Then, in Book 7, I think a situation will arise in > which Peter Pettigrew tries to kill Harry, and Ron > will save Harry and die himself(which would be ironic > in a very twisted way, seeing as Pettigrew used to be > Ron's pet...) Harry will then *freak out* and go > through a huge guilt spiral, because: > > 1. Because he saved Pettigrew in PoA, his best friend > was killed. > > 2. Ron wasn't only Harry's best friend but his *other* > best friend(Hermoine)'s boyfriend, so he will have to > deal with her grief as well. > > 3. And on top of *that*, Ron was his girlfriend's > brother, so he will have her grief to deal with too. > > Harry will be so overcome with grief and guilt it will > fuel his hatred towards Voldemort even more, and > *this* will be what propels Harry to bring down > Voldemort once and for all. > > Just a theory. I could be *way* off... but > interesting, no? Either way I think Ron's fate is > ultimately a dark one - I really think he will either > be tempted to the Dark Side(due to his increasing > bitterness towards Harry's fame and money), or he will > die. > > Also I think Hermoine will live and Harry as well - if > JKR was really going to kill him off, I don't think > she would have ever even *hinted* at it, seeing as > she'd probably assume no one would expect his death. > She'd want it to come out of left field. > > -EH > > > > ===== > "I think it is clear that we can expect great things from you" > > "Bless them, they'll go to any lengths to ignore magic, even if it's staring them in the face..." > > "Exactly," said Dumbledore, beaming once more. "Which makes you very different from Tom Riddle. It is our choices, Harry, that show us what we really are, far more than our abilities." > > "He couldn't know that at this very moment, people meeting in secret all over the country were holding up their glasses and saying in hushed voices: "To Harry Potter- the boy who lived!" > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes > http://finance.yahoo.com From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Sat Aug 31 20:33:34 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2002 20:33:34 -0000 Subject: Hogwarts: A tight schedule Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43419 The recent discussion of how Hogwart works, when I steped up to suggest a fellow listmember's (Catlady) theory of multiple campuses, somehow lead me to a math problem, in a way to poke holes ont one of the theories. That got me to thinking, since I once before suggested that Snape's life as a teacher must be a hell. The post, which I'm going to paraphrase here, was never actually challenged. It's quite old, so I'm giving it another try to see if someone can come up with a plausible theory on how it works. The problem is this: some of the teachers have got schedules that, although (remotely) possible, would stress them into suicide in a few months. The most obvious ones are Snape and the DADA teacher. I'm from the sciences view, so I'm going to express this with numbers. If you need clarification, please do tell me so. Snape: has to teach potions to all years, and he gets two double groups out of every year. He teaches 4 hours/week. DADA: Teaches all the years too, and has 4 groups per year. He teaches 2 hours/week. They are really one and the same. The total number of groups in the school is 4 groups/year * 7 years = 28. Thus, Snape teaches 14 groups (since he doubles), 4 hours/week to a total of 56 hours. The DADA also teaches 56 hours/week (28 * 2). Most listees will probably know that the number of hours a week is 40, and recently, sindicates ask for 35, but that's not the worst of it. Snape and the DADA are basically on the same schedule, so I'll concentrate on Snape: 56 hours/week means (in a five day week, since canon points towards saturdays and sundays free) 11.2 hours/day (that is, 11 hours a day and an extra one one day). That day, Snape teaches from 8 o'clock in the morning until -at least- 9 o'clock in the afternoon, with only one hour to eat. Needless to say, Harry has never had class so late, except to gaze at the stars, which takes place at midnight. It STILL gets worse (as if an 11 hour/day schedule wasn't madness already), when you throw in PoA. During PoA, Snape actually takes up the DADA teacher's (Lupin's) classes: all 56 hours of it. This means he actually has, during that week, to teach 112 hours. In five days, there are 120 hours. Yes, that's right. That week, Snape sleeps 8 hours (1.6 hours/night), doesn't eat (unless he eats in class), and his students get DADA classes during the night (and I mean at 3 o'clock in the morning). He looks angry, all right. I would do too, after THAT. So, now I should offer some solutions. The first and most obvious one, is that he uses Time-Turners to attend his own classes, and that during that week in four that Lupin feels under the weather, Snape's Time-turner must be steaming (I mean, he'd have to use it two or three times every two hours to attend everything, and I'd say that he'd have to use it to get some sleep and food, too). Unfortunately, canon desn't point that way, even if time turners ARE introduced in PoA. Students are bound to notice that he gives them potions at the same time he teaches DADA to another group. And we know from Hermione's experience with the Time-turner that it's increadibly stressing. Another posibility is that there are actually clases on Saturday (I was going to suggest half-day, but doesn't wash). Supposing he takes 8 hours for sleeping/eating/personal health care/etc, that would give Snape 96 hours (16*6) each week, which means Snape would "just" have to find overtime to teach an extra 16 hours each week, which could be done by teaching 3 extra hours each day from his personal time, save Saturday when he would (only!) have to teach 2 extra hours (taken out of nightime, of course). In total, he would be teaching 18.67 hours a day, which means sleeping 5.33 hours a day (and probably most of the Sunday). Which is still absolute hell, even if it's just one week out of four. Also, the DADA classes could have been taught to the students while Lupin is off sick by any number of the teachers, and Harry was just (un)lucky enough to get stuck with Snape. This means another two hours to his schedule, for a grand total of 58 hours during that week. This comes out to mean less than 12 hours a day, and is not very different from what he had before. Unfortunately, the same problem as before exists: AFAWK, classes end at about 5 in the afternoon, not at 9 o'clock, which would be necessary to teach all those hours (since we know the students stop to eat, although I supose we cannot discount eating in turn -but still, that would only give him an extra hour, and he'd have to eat in class, although that wouldn't be a problem. Snape should be an excellent cook, and the cauldron is there already...). Another possibility is that classes last less than an hour (right now, I'm working with 55 minute classes with 5 minutes between clases so you can get from one to another). Working with Snape's normal (that is, non-intensive) week schedule, where he teaches 28 double clases in a 40 hour week, he could make it fit if classes + break lasted 42,86 minutes. That is, 40 minutes per class plus a brisky run of nerly three minutes to get from divination in the tallest tower to transfiguration. No wonder Harry tends to be late to class. There is one last possibility: Potion classes get less hours as years go on, meaning that 5, 6 and 7 years get only one double class per week. with this suposition (which, I think, will get shotdown very quickly in future books, if we ver get to read them), Snape only has to teach (4*2*4) + (3*2*2) = 44 hours/week. Which is just 9 hours/day except Fridays, when he gets a normal working schedule. Small wonder he always seems angry, whichever way you look at it. That's it. I've given you all the pieces I've been able to found. If you see a piece of the border, and decide to take a shot at putting it all toghether, be my guest. If you want to throw another piece in, feel free. I have the gut feeling that the answer is just staring at me up there, by mix-and-match, but I'm just too tired to look for it. Hope that helps, Grey Wolf, who would like to know why people so frecuently mispell his name: bboy_mn, unless you want to be called ggirl_op in his posts from now own, would you please remember that it's GREY Wolf, *NOT* "Gery" Wolf? From editor at texas.net Sat Aug 31 20:39:12 2002 From: editor at texas.net (Amanda Geist) Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2002 15:39:12 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Abstemiousness with truth - the careful fantasy world of Potter References: Message-ID: <00a801c2512e$77db4740$0a7763d1@texas.net> No: HPFGUIDX 43420 My heavens, what an articulate break from the enlarge-your-breasts spam. Darkthirty Binns essayed: > In all situations in my own life, I have found it both easier and > more rewarding when the context that obtains is one of open > communication and transparency, which by extension, creates the kind > of equality between involved parties that results when little is > hidden, when information, or knowledge, cannot or is not owned, or > held as a private possession. A far cry from the so-called magical > world of Harry Potter. Do you *talk* this way? We must be related. I should refer you to some of my Hogwarts heraldry harangues, which some of the older listmembers have printed out and use for insomnia. But on to your point. > The hardest thing to accept about the apparent magical world of Harry > Potter is that, in spite of Dumbledore's reticence regarding the > reason Voldemort wants Harry dead, in spite of "the restricted > section," which, I point out, contains information essential to the > so-called heroes' quest, in spite of so many characters being > mysteries, as they say, to other characters, as Black and Snape, for > instance, are, or Neville is to the trio, signs both of > intransigence, in the first case, or betraying every sign of > Rowling's unravelling of facts on a "need to know" basis - that is, > in the context of her literary career, in terms of making the > series "make sense" at the end of it all - as is the case with > Neville, in spite of Hermione's secret use of the Time Turner, a > secret that proved quite dangerous, in particular to Hermione, and a > secrecy that had to be pierced in order to complete the given quest, > all of these ignorances involving core aspects of the story, Harry > and the trio can still succeed. I shall call my impression of this paragraph the Anti-Kobayashi Maru point. You are, as I understand it, saying that regardless of the complexity of the world JKR has created, the means for Harry to succeed are still built in. Because of this, it's not a realistic world; a realistic world would be one where it is not only possible but probable and likely that he fail. Is that correct? > How is this possible? Are we to assume fate, a grossly misunderstood > concept in my opinion, being myself something of a secular calvinist, "Calvinist," deriving from a proper name, should be capitalized. (Sorry. Can't help it. Personality defect. Cursed by an editor at birth. Etc.) > declares that Harry and the trio will succeed whether or not those > around them attempt to keep them in the dark, to impose, in a way, > ignorance upon them? Do we really believe Harry's successful > encounters so far have been written beforehand, and the outcome > assured? His response to the 2nd task seems central here. His success > depends upon some inner quality, which may or may not be connected to > his so-called magical qualities, that makes him stay. He goes through > no internal debate. His staying was not quite a decision; rather, as > he later reflects, it was an action, the right one, we agree, made in > ignorance. A bit of pathos. I'm not at all sure I know what you're saying with this. The second task, the Egg? How did his success with the egg depend on an inner quality? And "stay"? It was in facing the dragon that he briefly considered running, wasn't it? I think you may be making a point worth considering, but I really can't work it out, please clarify. > Let me try to demonstrate my reading of Rowling like this - The so- > called magical world of Harry Potter is, on one level, on perhaps the > most fundamental level, unequivocally nothing more than the extended > fantasy-world of an abused boy stuck in a closet. I cannot state this > strongly enough. Whether the boy is in fact adopted, or is imagining > that he is adopted, taken from his so-called real parents, whether he > attends a regular school or isn't even allowed to do that, it is his > fantasy world to which we are exposed. And the abstemiousness with > truth characteristic of that world is the signal, the flashing > lights, as it were, of the guard towers, of the circumference of > Hogwarts' famous ancient magical protection - read, the constricted > limits of the abused boy's knowing. That protection, I submit, is > directed inwards as much as it is directed outwards. Even the > widespread anti-muggle charms appear to me to be defenses against the > reality of sustained punishment. There is also mention of some > similar sort of ancient magical protection regarding the Dursley's > residence. This too, in my reading, seems as much an inwards pressure > as an outwards one. It's an interesting idea, I will admit, that all of this is in Harry's mind. I like it no better than I did the first time I saw this idea, on some long-ago thread where people were writing the infamous already-written Last Paragraph--one person's involved Harry waking up in his cupboard under the stairs, it all having been a dream. Ugh. If this is a true interpretation, why does he come back to the Dursleys, to "reality," at all? Why does he not allow himself to "stay" at Hogwarts over the summers, too? Will you tell me Harry has internalized the pattern of terms and holidays to the point of being unable to escape it, or will you say that all of the experiences with reality that he cannot otherwise deny or sublimate are compressed in his fantasy to the summer break? Also, there is the problem of the complexity, which you yourself noted above in your introductory monolith. Too many of these characters are complex beyond the range of an eleven-year-old's ability to create or sustain, especially given that they interact with each other as well as with Harry. Part of the reason these books have adult readers is that the characters resonate with adult readers, in responses and actions commensurate with adults. These characters, to me, seem a bit beyond the level of complexity a child could invent or project, especially not a child with Harry's limited experience. Further, there are a few scenes where the story is *not* filtered through Harry's perceptions or colored by his presence. The staffroom scene springs to mind, where the behavior of the teachers is different from the way they behave in front of the students. I submit that a detail of this level is probably beyond the fantasizing of a child of twelve. Also, Harry is not even present in the opening of book 4 (although we learn he dreamed it). If all this were his fantasy, we, as readers, would not have been provided the "full" story before reading Harry's dim remembrances. We would not need it, nor would he, to construct another fantasy structure. Lastly, Harry is growing and maturing. You postulate that this is an escape of his circumstances, yet if it is all a fantasy, it's a remarkably edifying one. Harry is doing far more than getting away from the Dursleys. He is *learning* from his experiences, growing in wisdom and knowledge. If the wizarding world is all in his mind, where is this wisdom coming from? One *can* learn from thought experiments, granted, but Harry's experiences of people and interactions are hardly enough, in my opinion, to have allowed him to create such a rich world full of varied personalities whose function is to dispense wisdom he already, somehow, possessed. > Do we agree with Dumbledore's assessment that Harry should grow up > away from what we are supposed to believe are the horrifying and > dangerous consequences of fame, and be, rather, reared by people who > hate what he represents, mistrust and abuse him? Of course not. Um, I agree with Dumbledore, here. I don't think Dumbledore knew how horrible the Dursleys would be, and his reasoning is sound. > So we > must accept that Dumbledore's assurance about the safety of the > Dursley's house is true - otherwise, he's just being a stupid old man > who assumes family is more important than human rights. This so- > called safety certainly looks like the rationalization of someone in > a hopeless and helpless situation to me. And for someone deprived of > information, of ways of obtaining it, someone for whom the paths to > knowledge are closed, ignorance might seem strength. In a real way, > however, for such a person, ignorance would surely be some measure of > protection. Ignorance about one's actual hopeless and helpless > situation, the extent of it, or rather, intensity of it. Harry does not learn, immediately, that he must stay with the Dursleys because he is safe there. Nor do we. I'd think that if he were trying to rationalize his fate by inventing the safety factor, that would be one of the first things his fantasy addressed. Nor does he seem to embrace ignorance; he receives knowledge gladly. He does not go seeking information, but he does not hide from it. > I'm not sure how much of this line Rowling is conscious of when she > writes. I have no intention in this post of addressing that > particular moot area. Rather, this is my reading, and as it seems > both a general response to the digests I've been getting, on one > hand, and an idea that has been an acute difficulty for me since I > first read the books, I thought I'd post it in a new thread, see if > perhaps this one gets past the Ministry of Moderators. You must have been coming in through that third-corridor route. Watch out for the three-headed one. --Amanda From eloiseherisson at aol.com Sat Aug 31 21:21:26 2002 From: eloiseherisson at aol.com (eloiseherisson at aol.com) Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2002 17:21:26 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Snape and various Infimary conversations in PoA Message-ID: <78.2c0121e2.2aa28d56@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 43421 Porphyria: > combining a couple of replies to Eloise. I originally said: > > > > but Snape, when given the opportunity, turns Sirius over to the MoM. > > > And I cannot think of any ulterior motive for him to do so; I think > > > Fudge would have been delighted to take delivery of a soul-sucked > > > Sirius, and Snape himself admits he has no idea why the Dementors > > > were retreating, so it's not like he saw a Patronus galloping around. > > And Eloise replied: > > > First of all, the Dementors had been put to flight and Snape may have had > > > no > > means of recalling them. I personally suspect they weren't coming back in > > > a > > hurry. > > Yes, but he didn't make any attempt at all. He originally speaks of > calling them over, but he doesn't actually try this. We know they aren't > coming back, but he has no idea of what's going on. Apparently he just > watches them go and carries on. Now look, you know I'm playing Devil's Advocate here, don't you? On balance, I think you're right about what went on here, although I must admit that now I've had the idea that he thought the Dementors had already performed the Kiss, I do think it makes a lot of sense. It would certainly explain why he didn't call the Dementors. And think what must have gone through his mind if that is what he thought...not only did it appear that Sirius had been Kissed, but the students as well and no matter how much he hates Harry, I can hardly think he would have been happy with that result. Secondly, I'm not sure that there's much moral difference between turning him over to the MOM to be soul-sucked and calling the Dementors to do it straight away, given that they had permission to do so if they found him. In fact, it would have been more merciful, wouldn't it? > > Secondly, I think Snape may have seen the dramatic potential of bringing > > in > > Sirius intact, as it were, of personally handing over his prisoner for > > punisment. Sure, Fudge would have been delighted to take delivery of a > > soul-sucked Sirius (that's a tongue-twister!), but it's not like anyone > > important (as far as he was concerned) witnessed the events leading up to > > > it, > > saw his part in it, even knew, beyond, his word, that he had been > > instrumental in bringing it about. > > Well, as you point out yourself, bringing back an unconscious man looks an > awful lot like bringing back a soul-sucked man (perhaps Snape has some > means of telling the difference; I don't have an answer for that one). He' > s still personally handing over the prisoner to the law, pretty much the > same presentation value. Point being, I don't see where Snape was going > for dramatic potential here. Well, of course, this doesn't work if he *did* think the Kiss had already been performed. But if he *didn't*, then I do think he could have made a bit more of the situation with a fully alive prisoner. He gets to have Fudge confront Sirius, gets to gloat over him *conscious*, gets a bit more of a judicial execution, possibly in front of witnesses, with himself in the starring role as his captor, rather than just bringing in this soul-sucked body (which he might have found just found lying around the grounds, as far as anyone else is concerned). I think I prefer your version (or the thinking it had already happened version)! As he later says to Fudge he wants Sirius to > > be soul-sucked right away, so I don't think he's expecting Sirius to give > some sort of dramatic testimony beforehand. He certainly doesn't want > Sirius as any kind of witness. Oh no, of course not. I don't think there was much danger of Sirius being given a fair hearing. Given his performance the first time he was caught, I suspect he wouldn't even have tried. Fudge himself implies that Harry will later > serve as a witness if the Daily > Prophet wants an interview, so they both imagine that base being covered by > a far more prestigious person. > Furthermore, his main conversation with Fudge always strikes me for its > *lack* of dramatic potential, especially given Snape. You remark: > > > Appearances, appearances! Snape was taking Sirius up to the castle and > > would > > want to be seen in a good light - akin to the ever-so-reasonable way he > > talks > > to Fudge about Harry. See how noble I am in victory, and all that. Sirius > > > had > > no reason to care what anyone thought of his behaviour, except possibly > > for > > Harry and he may have realised there was no love lost there. > > > > The counter-argument is, of course, that Snape really was being noble in > > what > > he thought was his victory - which would make subsequent events even > > harder > > to bear. Phew! > > Yeah, that is my counter-argument. Well, perhaps more 'reasonable' than > 'noble,' but along the same lines. Yeah. I was getting my epithets confused. You're noble in *defeat*, aren't you, *magnanimous* in victory. What strikes me about Snape's first > > conversation with Fudge in the infirmary is Snape's honesty and > matter-of-factness. [I remember others have characterized this > conversation as 'oily,' but I just don't hear it that way.] You'd think he' > d be bragging about his prowess or at least buttering Fudge up in the hope > of insuring that medal, but he's actually very modest. When Fudge asks him > how he got the bump on the head, he immediately tells them it was the > children, which you would think would be a little embarrassing for him to > admit. Of course he quickly explains their relative innocence...:-) > Likewise, when Fudge asks him if he knows why the Dementors were > retreating, he concedes he has no idea, and his reply also indicates that > he has admitted he was knocked out for a significant portion of the events. > He's not quite self-effacing, but he's not wrenching it for all it's > dramatic potential either. (Imagine the wild tale about heroically > dispelling the Dementors that Lockhart would have fabricated were he in > the same place.) Eerily, he's just being truthful. Which I put down to his cleverness and acting ability. It is just so well thought out and put together. Far more effective than if he had been bragging or buttering Fudge up. > What also strikes me about this conversation is that Snape does in fact > use the audience with Fudge to bang on his very favorite drum about how > Harry gets too many privileges. This, to me, sounds more flatly honest > than either wise, ingratiating or politic. Everyone knows the politically > correct attitude to express is one of fondness and support for Harry > Potter (even Lucius recommends this). You would think if Snape were either > *trying* to sound noble (i.e. faking it, hamming it up) or at least trying > to cement his new chumminess with Fudge (i.e. sucking up) that he'd be > smart enough to not complain about Harry, or at least stop the second > Fudge says "we've all got a bit of a blind spot where he's concerned," but > no, Snape goes right on arguing his case. I can't help but think Snape's > "ever-so-reasonable" manner is not an act, but a calmer version of how he > really feels. Especially since the words he expresses here do not clash > with any of Snape's previous actions; on the contrary, of course we've > known all along that Snape does want Harry reined in for his own > protection, he's just usually more angry in the way he says it. So apart > from the fact that Snape is being very polite with Fudge, nothing in the > substance of what he actually says sounds to my ear calculated to make him > appear in an ideal light. I hear what you're saying, but I have always interpreted the very reasonableness of his complaints about Harry to be calculated: he knows he can't rave at Fudge (look at what happens when he does), so he goes with the 'How can you possibly not see my point when I'm being so reasonable' line. > While we're in the infirmary, Dumbledore later says to Snape: > > > > "Unless you are suggesting that Harry and Hermione are able to be in > > > two places at once, I'm afraid I don't see any point in troubling > > > them further" > > And Eloise interpreted: > > > The way I understand it, this interpretation is premised on the fact that > > there are *not* a dozen magical ways in which HH could, or appear to be, > > in > > two places at once. The idea originally came up in response to the > > question > > of what on earth Dumbledore was up to, virtually giving the game away > like > > that. If there were a number of other ways that they could have done it, > > then > > surely Fudge would have been aware them too and Dumbledore would have > been > > risking ringing alarm bells by raising the topic of bi-location. > > > > It was only safe for Dumbledore to give a coded warning to Snape to shut > > up > > if he and he alone understood the message. If, in other words the way > > which > > Snape knew they were able to be in two places at once was the only way - > > and > > it was so unlikely and so impossible that a student would have access to > > that > > way that Fudge would not suspect it. > > Well, I agree that that remark is calculated to send a message to Snape > that Fudge won't understand. Is that the main point you and Pippin were > making? Yes! Well, part of it. I think that this is probably true, and since Fudge is basically > > an idiot, I think there is plenty of wiggle room for Dumbledore to toss a > hint at Snape without having anything click in Fudge's mind. Surely we can > all agree that Snape is better at putting two and two together than Fudge! > But I too am basing my interpretation on the assumption that Snape could > figure something out that Fudge couldn't. > > See, whether there are a dozen (what I originally suggested) or merely one > way in which H&H could have rescued Sirius, I still say that Dumbledore is > letting Snape know that Harry had his knowledge and approval in doing it. > And while you can certainly interpret this as Dumbledore simply letting > Snape know what the deal is, I feel that, in the context of Snape freaking > out and Dumbledore acting like he's enjoying himself, eyes a-twinkle, it > comes across IMO as virtually mocking. I'll read it again when I retrieve the book! It's not open mockery in the sense > > that anyone else is supposed to understand, it's private mockery between > just these two. Snape *can't* do anything about it now since Sirius has > already disappeared, and since I don't actually think that Snape would > want to get Dumbledore in trouble with the Ministry over it, he's left to > do nothing but storm off. So Dumbledore's comment has the same effect as > his previous one about his memory, it utterly stifles Snape which, while > merciful for everyone else, is still rather cruel to Snape and a cavalier > way to treat someone who will risk their life for you later on. You see, I'm wondering what else Dumbledore could have said to get the message across. I quite admit that he's enjoying the situation, but at who's expense, I'm not sure. His remark to Fudge about Severus' disappontment is very paternal, I think, a remark about a wayward child to whom tolerance must be shown. I think it is a very specific message, which I interpret as, 'Yes, Severus, you're right, but for goodness' sake shut up now, because it's part of my plan and you're going to ruin everything.' I think he was forced into saying it. Snape wasn't in the mood just to be told to be quiet: it had to be a really strong message that told him of Dumbledore's interest in the situation. And it seems that they had not had a chance to converse before then, so I don't think he had the opportunity to explain in advance, in private. I don't think he really does enjoy the Sirius/Snape conflict - look at his impatience with them at the end of GoF. But to > repeat my point from before, this, ironically, does point to the > degree of > trust between them that they can clash to this extent and still be > confident in each other when some dark force opposes both of them. And I cannot quibble with your assessment of their relationship. >>~Porphyria, who still doesn't know why webview thinks it's a good idea to breaks lines where she puts apostrophes>> It does it on Email too! Eloise > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From skelkins at attbi.com Sat Aug 31 21:45:00 2002 From: skelkins at attbi.com (ssk7882) Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2002 21:45:00 -0000 Subject: Why I Dislike The Twins/Toon Talk In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43422 I asked: > Is there some language short of profanity that is unacceptably > vituperative to direct towards fictional characters in this forum? HF replied: > Well, one would certainly hope so :-) Darn! Oh, sorry. I guess I was just hoping for a different response. You see, I *like* vituperative language. But only when it's directed against fictional people. So tell me, then, is "cad" okay? I had thought that Pippin had objected to my use of the word "cad," but she corrected me: > IIRC, I objected to the word "bullies". Oh, was that it, Pippin? I'm sorry. The part of my post that you had snipped was the part in which I referred to them as "thuggish cads," so I'd assumed that "cads" was the word you were objecting to, possibly in part because that was the word with which Catherine had taken issue. > "Cads" is much more suitable, IMO, if you are looking for a > derogatory term for the Terrible Two. Yes, I think so as well. Certainly it is more justified than "thuggish." ;-) Really, I don't know if I even consider "cads" all that derogatory. I tend to think of the word as rather endearingly archaic. Charming, even. If someone called me a 'cad,' I can't imagine feeling injured. I rather suspect that I'd smile. > They do put Percy at his wits' end, but unlike Elkins's friend, > Percy has not been driven away from his home, nor is there any > indication that he'd prefer to live elsewhere. Well, I think that he *should* live elsewhere. I think that it would do him good to get away from the clan for a while. But you are right in that I don't see any sign that Percy himself has ever considered this a possibility. We never, for example, are given the slightest indication that the family is dependent upon his income, or anything like that, and given how often the Weasley financial situation is alluded to in GoF, I rather suspect that we would have, if we were meant to understand this to be the case. So probably Percy really *could* move out of the Burrow, if he were so inclined. > Except perhaps at the Office. But I took that as more an indication > of incipient workaholism than Twinavoidance. He seems to be just as > obsessed with his job after the Twins go back to school. True. It's tricky, that, though, because his workaholism does seem to me to be in large part a symptom of his growing feelings of alienation from his family. His devotion to Crouch is filial in nature, and the beginning of GoF is where we first see Percy in conflict not only with his siblings, but also with his parents. So there does seem to be a good deal of displacement going on there, IMO. In this respect, I tend to read Percy in GoF as a (far more harmless!) double to Barty Junior, whose response to a schism with his family is similarly to seek a substitute father figure in Voldemort. Pippin has written some truly fantastic stuff in the past about the series' focus on the missing mother figure (which the ban on 'me toos' and 'oooh, neat!'s has previously prevented me from praising). In GoF, with its motif of parricide, its thematic emphasis on individuation and volition, and its focus on the trials of male adolescence, I perceive a much stronger emphasis on the role of the absent or otherwise disappointing *father.* But of course, that can't all be placed at the Twins' door, by any means. It's the entire family dynamic that I see as a spiritually eroding influence on Percy, and the twins are just one manifestation (if a particularly abrasive one) of that dynamic. > I admit that the twins can be pretty obnoxious, but I resist > calling them bullies, because if they are bullies, then what do we > call Draco, Dudley and Snape? Er...bullies? ;-) Really, I think that much of the problem in this entire discussion has been one of definitions: clinical vs colloquial, for example. It's also been muddied by the conflation of "bully" with "evil," not to mention with "I think they act like bullies" with "I don't like 'em" -- which was my own fault. > As Shaun points out in his post, the Twins may be bullies in some > technical sense, but they aren't bullies of the same order as DDS, > and they require a different kind of intervention, which, in fact, > they usually get. I agree that they are a different animal from Draco, who in turn is himself a very different type of bully than Snape. Draco has a monstrously high self-esteem and suffers from a thwarted sense of entitlement. I don't really think that Snape's got the same issues at all. For that matter, I dare say that Crabbe and Goyle probably have completely different issues all their own, too. Although I doubt somehow that we'll ever get to hear about them. ;-) > It would be a pretty lame anti-bully intervention program that > cracked down on F&G and let Draco and Snape get away with > everything...which is, of course, exactly what's happening. Heh. Well, it wouldn't be a very interesting discussion if we talked about all the ways in which *Draco* is shown acting like a bully in the canon, would it? I mean, who on earth would bother to dissent? Besides. If they did, then how on earth would they frame their argument? HF wrote: > I think it's habitual in any discussion of polarized views for the > individual in the minority, or, as the case may be in some > instances, the silent majority, to possess the burden of proof. "Over-analyzing." "Over-intellectualizing." "Reading too much into the text." "Speaking too stridently." > Typically, the minority has had to approach their argument with far > more delicacy and tact than one of the majority would, or risk > being labeled a disturber of the peace "Non-canonical." "Misreading." "Distorting the story." "Speaking from emotional bias." Yes. Well. You see the difficulty here, I trust. Nope. If I were someone who didn't think that "bully" was an appropriate term to describe Draco Malfoy, I'd be feeling pretty leery of speaking up after the way that this debate evolved. And that's a pity, really, because I, for one, would very much have liked to hear their reasoning. Cindy wrote: > This discussion of the twins is not the first time criticism of a > character has touched off controvery on the list, BTW. . . . . For > nstance, I adore Moody, and the first time someone pointed out that > Real Moody behaves like a Rogue Cop, I felt a bit defensive. Yes. Well, er, that was me too, wasn't it? Heh. Sorry. I don't do this sort of thing on *purpose,* you know. Honestly, I don't. But at least I don't go around bashing *Hagrid.* I mean, that's just plain mean. ;-) Cindy: > I wonder if it is because people feel threatened somehow, perhaps > for the same reason that people might feel threatened when the > twins' behavior is questioned. Maybe they found Hagrid's alcohol > abuse and general irresponsibility cute or endearing, and my > remarks are making them question their affection for Hagrid? I > still don't know. I don't know either. I still don't get it. As it happens, I *still* find Hagrid's tippling and irresponsibility kind of cute and endearing, myself. But the things that you and Jenny have written about him here in the past have indeed led me to realize that there is a darker side to his irresponsibility, one that I just honestly had never considered before I read your posts. It has occurred to me, for example, that if I were a parent, I might well feel very differently about Hagrid's drinking and poor judgement, especially his lack of caution with dangerous animals. Similarly, Amanda's posts explaining why, as a parent, she absolutely would *not* have wanted Lupin to remain as a staff member at any school attended by a child of hers were real eye-openers for me. I'd just never really thought about the issue from that perspective before. I had written it off as "discrimination," and left it at that. But of course, it isn't really all that simple, is it? Lupin really *is* a threat, and his forgetfulness when it comes to his Wolfsbane Potion really *does* suggest that he may indeed have a few non-compliance issues that make him even less someone a concerned parent would want around their children. So have those discussions changed my reading of the text? Oh, yeah. They sure have. And Lupin is one of my favorite characters, too, so of course it was a bit of a wrench to concede that those nasty parents who would have wanted him to be fired really did have a valid point. But I *like* it when that happens. After all, if I didn't want to expose myself to other people's readings of the books, then why on earth would I be here? Cindy: > I imagine that some people don't welcome having their reading > experience changed in this way. I can understand that. I guess I'm having some difficulty understanding that. Isn't that what this forum is for? I'm also still struggling to understand why being led to revise their interpretation of the twins' character might actually lead people to try to alter their sense of *humour.* That's sort of creeping me out, to be perfectly honest with you. Why on earth would anyone try to do that? Cindy, for example, wrote: > Elkins, Eileen, Debbie and a few others have indicated that the > twins' behavior never struck them as funny. . . . . As you all may > know from my posts on this thread, I agree with them that some of > the twins' behavior is bullying behavior. > But I have to admit that I didn't always view it that way. Nope, > not me. I found the Ton Tongue Toffee thing *hilarious* the first > time I read it. But can't it be both? Why can't it be bullying behavior *and* be hilarious? I guess that I'm just not seeing how these two issues get conflated. Someone's behavior can be perfectly loathsome, yet still strike you as *funny.* Snape's behavior, for example, is definitely bullying. It's just awful, IMO, the way that he treats his students. That "I see no difference" line in GoF, for example, I thought was just dreadful. What a terrible thing to say to an adolescent girl! Poor Hermione! But you know, I did find it funny. Nor, I would add, do I feel the slightest bit of guilt over having found it funny. In real life, of course, I would. If I were a witness to such an event in real life, then I would certainly endeavor to show no signs of amusement, no matter how amusingly vicious I found the line to be, both out of consideration for the student's feelings and to avoid encouraging such behavior in the teacher. But while reading a work of fiction? Nah. It just doesn't bother me. When I grin at Snape's meaner comments, it's not because I condone his behavior. It's just 'cause I think they're funny. I feel no guilt over this. No one is harmed in the slightest by my laughing. Eloise wrote: > I can see why others interpret them as bullies, yet *I* still find > them amusing. But, but, but...but couldn't you still find them amusing even if you *did* interpret them as bullies? See, this is the thing that I just don't understand, perhaps because my own sense of humour is extraordinarily dark. It's just never occurred to me that finding a comedic scene funny implies any moral approval of the behavior being depicted in said scene. I mean, good heavens! What does it say about me, then, that I snicker at Voldemort and his Death Eaters in the graveyard scene? I see nothing in the least bit moral or upright about *anyone's* behavior in that sequence. But I sure do find it *funny.* Cindy explained it thus: > Imagine that someone tells a racist joke, and you laugh. Then > someone else points out that they think the joke was racist and > therefore not funny. > Personally, I would feel defensive and embarrassed. Oh, dear. Yes. I suppose that I would as well. In that case, then perhaps this was my fault again. Did I imply that the reason that I don't find TTT funny is because it's a comedic depiction of *bullying?* No. That *is* why it makes me cringe, but it's not why I fail to find it funny. I can easily cringe at something while still finding it funny. I do that all the *time.* In fact, my *favorite* type of humour is the type that makes you cringe and laugh at the same time. No, what makes TTT unfunny is that it is *slapstick.* It's Dicey's "Danger Averted" comedy. It is cartoonish, and that's precisely why it's not funny. Cartoon slapstick has just never amused me in the slightest. I find it exceptionally tedious and irritating. (I've never been able to stand Warner Brothers cartoons either, as it happens.) But that has nothing to do with *what* is being depicted in the scene. It has everything to do with the *nature* of the depiction. So I don't really think that the "the joke is racist and therefore not funny" analogy holds up very well here. If the TTT scene had been written as black humour, rather than as cartoonish slapstick, then I likely would have found it very funny indeed. But that's a matter of comedic preference. It's a question of aesthetics, not of ethics. Yet this whole humour issue really seems to be upsetting people, and I'm still trying to understand the reasons for that. Let me try this as a proposal, just to see if it resonates with people. Dicey has identified a type of slapstick which takes as its operative principle: "Only if the victim isn't realistically enough depicted for us to take his pain too seriously is it funny." Could it be, perhaps, that there is a related form of humour, one which takes as its operative principle: "Only if the aggressor is morally *clean* is it funny?" In other words, is it true that for some people the morality or ethics of the characters really *does* have direct bearing on whether or not they find a scene that involves violence amusing? Is THAT why people were conflating the issues of whether the twins are funny and whether their behavior is bullying? I hadn't realized that there were people who held that view of humour. In my conception of comedy, the moral positioning of the actors doesn't really have very much to do with whether or not something is funny (although the moral positioning of the author sometimes can: a dark comedy about the Klan, for example, I really *would* consider funny or not in large part based on what I perceived the author's attitude on the subject to be). Immoral actions can be (and very often are) portrayed in a humorous light. Very many forms of comedy involve some form of harm or discomfiture. Nor is "Danger Averted" comedy the only type of humour out there. Sometimes things are funny not because *no* harm is done, but because in fact a great *deal* of harm is being done. So I think that we might want to be careful about saying that it's not okay to laugh at certain things when we see them depicted in fiction. If we were to declare all forms of comedy which involve people being unkind each other or people getting hurt off-limits, then that really wouldn't leave us with very much to laugh at, would it? But surely the question of humour is a different one from the question of characterization, isn't it? That Voldemort's actions are occasionally played for very dark humour doesn't make him any less of a sadist. That Snape's verbal abuse is often quite funny doesn't make him any less of a bully. That the Dursleys' locking Harry in the cupboard beneath the stairs or feeding him on nothing but watery soup is a comedic depiction of child abuse doesn't make the Dursleys admirable models of good parenting. What the characters' behavior reveals about them is a completely different issue than that of whether or not we find them *funny.* Then, perhaps I am merely oversensitive on this subject because, uh, well, because see, I actually *do* find it kind of funny when Voldemort tortures Wormtail. Not the Cruciatus, no. That wasn't particularly funny. But the fact that he'd been threatening to feed the poor wretch to Nagini? Er...well, uh, yeah. See, that really *is* funny. It's funny, see, because Pettigrew is a *rat* animagus. He's rodent-like by nature, and he's spent *far* too many years of his life in his rodent form. And so Voldemort threatening to feed him to a big snake is funny. It's funny because someone who is at heart a rat can be reasonably expected to have some rather strongly phobic feelings about snakes. It's funny because the precise nature of the threat is so very appropriate. It's funny because the nature of a rodent's feelings about snakes relates in a direct fashion to Wormtail's own ridiculously untenable moral position in regard to Voldemort. It's funny because as readers, we realize that it had to have been an idle threat, and yet Wormtail himself does not seem to have had the presence of mind to have reached this same conclusion. And it's funny because Voldemort himself seems so devestatingly aware of all of these factors. It is funny. It's just not slapstick. It's black humour instead, which is a different form of sadistic comedy, and one that follows a completely different set of narrative rules. Am I really supposed to feel guilty for appreciating that form of humour? Because I have to say that I just plain don't. Cindy wrote: > I'm having trouble seeing the link between whether a character is > fleshed out and our willingness to look the other way when they do > something wrong or mean-spirited or whether the pain they suffer > ought to trouble us. Well, again, I think that we want to draw a distinction between something being funny and something being morally condoned. That I can get a smile out of Voldemort's sadism doesn't make him any less of a sadist. That I can see humour in Wormtail's situation doesn't mean that he isn't really suffering. That there is black humour written into that scene doesn't mitigate anyone's flaws or change anyone's nature. And the fact that I can find things like that funny doesn't mean that I don't recognize wrongs as wrongs, or pain as pain. Voldemort really is cruel, and Wormtail really is suffering. And it's funny. What I suppose that I don't get is why people feel that they can't continue to find scenes like TTT funny just because they've decided that the twins are acting like bullies. What happens to make it suddenly "unfunny" if you come to believe that? -- Elkins From eloiseherisson at aol.com Sat Aug 31 22:12:56 2002 From: eloiseherisson at aol.com (eloiseherisson at aol.com) Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2002 18:12:56 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Twins, Toons, Humor and Instinct Message-ID: <36.2ce08f87.2aa29968@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 43423 Porphyria commented on a post of Abigails which reflected (rather more eloquently) some things which I have tried to say over the course of this discussion. I'm sorry, it delves into authorial intent. I know I'm not supposed to worry about that, but in this case, I do. Porphyria: > Abigail wrote a very interesting post about why criticizing the twins > hits a nerve with some readers, and while I think her discussion of > how to resolve the issue usefully points to the wide variety of > interpretations people have, I still have to reply to her assessment > about how we read whether JKR "approves" of a character or not. > > Abigail said: > > << > See, I don't think the problem is whether we like or dislike a > character, but whether JKR does, or rather whether she approves of > that character's actions. I think the main problem plaguing most of > the F&G defenders out there is not the fact that they find F&G's > antics funny, but that JKR seems to. It is an author's job to pass > moral judgement on the characters that he or she writes, to indicate > to the readers in means of varying subtlety whether or not this > character is doing a good thing or a bad thing. > >> > > See, I disagree here. I think that the mark of a great author is that > she can create characters who are complex enough that they provoke > debate, and present enough of their behavior to let readers make > their own decisions. Authors who hammer in a moral point tend to turn > me off. I like JKR because I don't think she does this. If there was > only one right answer to whether a character is doing something good > or bad then discussion groups like this would have no purpose and > reading would be boring. Plus, as Elkins pointed out a while ago > (#39058), books would never age well if we had to agree with the > author's moral perspective; great books have a habit of lasting > hundreds or thousands of years and in that time our sense of good and > evil shifts, but our love of the books doesn't. In any case, every > reader is free to have his or her own moral criteria that might > differ from the author's without invalidating anyone's perspective. Eloise: I agree that I would not like to read a book that is hammering home a moral point. But we agree that these are *moral* books don't we? I believe JKR has said so herself. Those of us with children are happy to encourage our children to read them because we think the moral message they contain is a good one. Regarding the point in question, a number of list members have told us that they interpret the twins as bullies. JKR apparently likes them. She apparently views their antics as funny. In particular, she doesn't really show any significant disapproval of their behaviour and, like Abigail, this is what I sense is, rightly or wrongly, at the back of some people's unease. It seems to be tantamount to condoning bullying, if that *is* what they do. I mean, why does the issue raise such passionate debate, if it's just a case of our freedom to interpret complex characters according to our own lights? You think they're bullies, I don't. OK, let's agree to differ. It's just a matter of interpretation. Surely it matters because it is touching not just on morality but on the morality being endorsed by a writer we admire and whose books we wish our children to read. I think it is also intriguing because if the twins are bullies, then it's not just a case of different readers having different moral criteria, but the author displaying two sets of moral criteria within the same book: we can laugh at the twins bullying, but it's not OK for Dudley or Draco (or, for th at matter, Snape, perhaps more tellingly) to bully. > Abigail continues: > > << > In the Harry Potter books, there are several ways in which Rowling > indicates to us her criticism of a character's actions. The most > obvious one is to have Harry disapprove of said behaviour, another is > to describe the character as unpleasant or disliked or physically > unappealing, and a third is simply karma - bad things happen to bad > people. > >> Porphyria: I agree that these are some of the ways she does it, but that doesn't > > mean we as readers are limited to these ways. For instance, in the > TTT incident, we know Harry approves of the twins actions, they are > portrayed as jolly and amusing and they don't get much karmic > punishment from this incident (actually they do: Molly yells at after > Arthur finally tells her). But on the other hand we can look at > Dudley's gagging and sputtering, Petunia's screaming, Vernon's > desperate china-throwing and Arthur's "brandishing" of his wand and > find the whole thing really painful to witness. JKR wrote the same > words on the page that everyone is reading; some of us just interpret > some parts as more significant or more palpable than others. Eloise: I would say that the disapproval of the incident that we the readers get, comes more from Arthur's reaction, rather than Molly's, not least in the realisation of how frantic he is to put things right. I wrote about my interpretation of this scene yesterday, so I won't repeat it here. Abigail: > << > Now, I'm not suggesting that at every turn in the Harry Potter books, > the bad are punished and the good are rewarded, because this is quite > simply not the case. What I am saying is that JKR very clearly > indicates to us who the good guys and the bad guys are. > >> Porphyria: > > Like Fudge and Bagman? Like Crouch Sr. or Snape? Filch, perhaps? > > I think JKR's ethics are more complicated than this. I think there > are a lot of things she finds funny, sympathetic or just plain > pathetic but that she doesn't wholeheartedly endorse. For instance, I > happen to find Crouch Sr.'s story utterly tragic because I think he > winds up in such intolerable situations where no matter what he does, > it's wrong. Where did he make his mistake? Was it sentencing his son > to prison? Was it springing him out again? Was it keeping him under > Imperio all those years? I marvel at JKR's ability to depict someone > as making the wrong decisions for the right reasons -- or is it the > other way around? Eloise: I think perhaps Abigail overstated the point. JKR's ethics do seem to be complicated. As we have pointed out before and Porphyria has re-emphasised, all the good characters are grey and there are a number whose status is indeterminate. But I think many characters are clearly flagged as being 'Good' whilst there are others clearly flagged as 'Bad', usually without benefit of much in the way of greyness in the form of redeeming features. We know whose side we're supposed to be on, in other words, and, by and large, who is on our (Harry's) side. Whilst the 'Good' characters have their flaws, I would venture that these do generally seem to be presented as flaws, but the twins behaviour, to my way of thinking doesn't seem to be presented as a character flaw, except on rare occasions, of which the TTToffee is the only incident I can recall. This, to my way of thinking contrasts with, for example, the way she portrays Snape. We know which side he's on, but his behaviour isn't presented in a very kind light. The person whose behaviour she treats most similarly to the twins' is, I think, Dumbledore. We find things to criticise in his behaviour form time to time, but his status as the ultimately 'Good' character in the book never seems to be challenged within the text. I don't feel he is written as at all 'grey'. Porphyria: > > Anyway, I don't see why the twins can't be a minor version of this. > Yes, we can think they are funny and still recognize that their > actions are not appropriate -- not mature, not fair, and someday > likely to have dangerous consequences. This does not make JKR bad > for "approving" of them, just very nuanced. As I think we recognize, > she is fond of portraying "good" characters as actually rather grey, > and like many of her readers, she has a wicked sense of humor that, > while not squeaky-clean ethically, is still very human. And that's > how I interpret the twins. Eloise: So do I, on the whole. But I become uneasy if someone wants to convert me to the idea that the twins are bullies. I am uneasy simply because to me they seem to be being presented positively. If I were to believe that they were truly bullies, then, as I know for a fact that my children (and I'm sure they aren't the only ones) simply find them funny, what is that teaching them? Surely, that bullying behaviour is funny. (And yes, I know that as a parent I can discuss the contents of the books with my children, but these are not, I think, really books originally envisaged to be read aloud to children. These books are read alone by older kids however, who will often have no discussion with an adult about the contents and are on their own when it comes to deciding the morality of a character's actions.) I become uneasy when I find that people are changing their reading of the books, unable to find the twins funny any more because of their bullying behaviour. What is that saying? That JKR is is *asking* us to laugh at something unacceptable? Unless we're just not supposed to find the twins episodes funny. Adding another layer of interpretation, saying 'Yes, the twins are superficially funny, but what effect are they *really* having?' is another matter. I have no problem with JKR approving of the twins. I have no problem with her approving Snape. I *would* have a problem if I felt, for example, that she approved of the way Snape behaves towards Neville, though. That's where I h ave the difficulty with this whole argument of whether the twins are bullies. It's not over the approval of the characters (of course we can hate the sin, but love the sinner, I think that goes without saying), it's over the approval of their actions. Pardon the metathinking, but my logic goes, We know of JKR's concerns for civil liberties, her work with Amnesty, etc, Therefore JKR would not condone bullying, Therefore she would not wittingly write about bullying behaviour in a positive light. JKR appears to approve the twins' behaviour (except for the TTToffee incident), Therefore the twins cannot be intended to be bullies. If those who insist that we should interpret the twins as bullies are right, then surely, either JKR must be unaware that she is actually condoning such behaviour, or she is guilty of writing in a way which allows her to be misinterpreted. That's not, IMHO, the same as creating characters complex enough to provoke debate. She's done that with Snape, but I remain to be convinced that she's done that with the twins. To my simple way of thinking. Before I post this, I see that someone has actually read one of my previous posts! Elkins: >Eloise wrote: > >> I can see why others interpret them as bullies, yet *I* still find >> them amusing. > >But, but, but...but couldn't you still find them amusing even if you >*did* interpret them as bullies? I'm beginning to think there's no right answer to any of this! Well, I suppose technically, there isn't... Oh, I don't know, Elkins. I'm so darned confused by all this! I'm struggling to think of an example of humorous bullying. Give me one, and I'll let you know! Well, you've quoted Snape. I never really thought that line about Hermione was one of his best, but yes, of course his evil sense of humour is one of his more attractive features. I guess I would. I do think the TTToffee episode is funny, even though I think it crosses the line. But I think my remark was in the context of a discussion where it was becoming unclear that one *should* laugh at the twins and also, I wanted to make my position clear. I do think they're funny. I don't think they're bullies. I'm not sure that I really like them. I need to re-read to assess the latter. Eloise. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From jferer at yahoo.com Sat Aug 31 22:23:08 2002 From: jferer at yahoo.com (jferer) Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2002 22:23:08 -0000 Subject: Predictions In-Reply-To: <20020830200402.26414.qmail@web12905.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43424 Evil Homer:"My prediction regarding Ron's fate: In Book 5 or 6, Ron and Hermoine become an item. Harry and Ginny will also become an item(I am *such* a fan of the Harry/Ginny scenario. Always go with the underdog, I say)." Ron and Hermione are destined by JKR to become an item, albeit temporarily. I think it's one of the worst mismatches in literary history, but there it is. At one time I was the "captain" of the Good Ship H/G, swimming against the tide. Beware the Draco/Ginny crowd, who send her off to an awful fate to get her out of Harry's way. Here is you daily affirmation: "Say it loud, I'm corny and I'm proud! We love Her-my-oh- ninny, but we're gonna root for Ginny!" Evil Homer:"Then, in Book 7, I think a situation will arise in which Peter Pettigrew tries to kill Harry, and Ron will save Harry and die himself(which would be ironic in a very twisted way, seeing as Pettigrew used to be Ron's pet...) Harry will then *freak out* and go through a huge guilt spiral, because: 1. Because he saved Pettigrew in PoA, his best friend was killed. 2. Ron wasn't only Harry's best friend but his *other* best friend(Hermoine)'s boyfriend, so he will have to deal with her grief as well. 3. And on top of *that*, Ron was his girlfriend's brother, so he will have her grief to deal with too." Reasonable. You went on to say this would give Harry extra motive to get Voldemort, but he's got all the motive he needs already. Homer:"Also I think Hermoine will live and Harry as well - if JKR was really going to kill him off, I don't think she would have ever even *hinted* at it, seeing as she'd probably assume no one would expect his death. She'd want it to come out of left field." I agree Hermione is the safest of the Trio, but I wish I was sure of Harry's safety. I've always believed he will pay a high price for his heroism. He may not die, but suffer greatly in other ways; but he'll suffer. Like Frodo, the world may be saved for others but not for him. Jim Ferer, who's weirded out by "Evil Homer" because it was his grandfather's name From jferer at yahoo.com Sat Aug 31 22:36:20 2002 From: jferer at yahoo.com (jferer) Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2002 22:36:20 -0000 Subject: Wizards and Magicians in School In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43425 bboy_mn:"I still say the JKR saying Hogwarts has an enrollment of 1,000; is not a statement of absolute student population, but typical or average. I speculated that typically 1,000 means 600 to 1,400. Someone who's name will not be mentioned (cough:Gery Wolf:cough) said that the plus/minus 40% was way too much (not a direct quote)." I think plus-minus 40% is too much also. When I say 1,000, I mean plus-minus 10% or so, and I expect others to mean that, too. If someone told me 1,000 and it was really 600, I would believe I was deceived. bboy_mn:"Rowling says there are no other Wizardry/Witchcraft school in Britain, so I say that they are NOT Wizarding school, they are instead, magician schools. Think magician as in technician. These are similar to trade schools. I know other people have already thought of this, but I thought I would add my thoughts to the discussion." I can't buy the 'multiple campus' theory either. It's way too much of a semantic loophole, for one thing. I'd say the 'magician' school idea is a variation on the 'apprenticeship' idea. I guess it's more credible, too. After all, where did Stan Shunpike go to school? Ernie Prang? You're putting forth 'magician' schools as a kind of blue collar vocational school. Jobs like Stan's call for magical folk who don't necessarily have the skills of a witch or wizard. This is where he might have learned what he needs to know. From Mysticwolf_girl at hotmail.com Sat Aug 31 16:53:55 2002 From: Mysticwolf_girl at hotmail.com (emma_look_alike) Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2002 16:53:55 -0000 Subject: Predictions Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43428 Predictions are essential to all good book series, in my opinion. I hope this hasn't already been brought up, as I fancy it as a prediction that I made up, (which I did). The Order of the Phoenix (the title of the fifth book, in case you were wondering), is a secret orginazation dedicated to stopping Voldemort and the Death Eaters. Some members include: Mundungus Fletcher, Arabella Fig, Remus Lupin, and Sirius Black, with Albus Dumbledore at the head. I do not think Dumbledore will die, unless it is helping Harry destroy Voldemort. I DO, however, think Hagrid will die. Consider the facts: A) He is relativley old, (muggle years), because he was at Hogwarts while Voldemort was, and Voldemort is no spring daisy. B) He only signed up for four movies. Perhaps it is because he looks for giants in the other three, but I doubt it. I do not think Ron will die. The reason being where he gets his name: the Legend of the Running Weasel. It is about a Yellow Rat that tries to kill his master, but does not succeed. So I think Peter Pettigrew will try to kill Ron, but he will not succeed. Emma_look_alike From smellee17 at hotmail.com Sat Aug 31 18:31:55 2002 From: smellee17 at hotmail.com (smellee17) Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2002 18:31:55 -0000 Subject: Trewlawney's Prediction Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43430 Hello all. New to the group and hoping this hasn't been discussed to death already. I think Professor Trewlaneys one and only other true predicton was about Harry being the one to take down Voldemort. Voldemort, upon hearing this, decides to go kill harry while he is a baby . In a greek tragedy self-fullfiling prophesy sort of way, Voldemort loses all his power. Maybe the reason he would have spared Lily Potter. She was unimportant at the moment becuase he was there for Harry. However, he didnt die so maybe Harry will get him later. Just a theory. Smellee17 From millergal8 at aol.com Sat Aug 31 19:27:39 2002 From: millergal8 at aol.com (millergal8 at aol.com) Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2002 15:27:39 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: predictions Message-ID: <152.1356671d.2aa272ab@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 43431 In a message dated 8/30/02 8:13:02 PM Pacific Daylight Time, southernscotland at yahoo.com writes: << She never knew she'd be rich and famous. She never knew about the movie series then, or that so many kids and adults would hang on her every word (as we do here). She's said herself that she was depressed while writing at least some of it, and that it was first written to please only herself. >> I for one hope that JKR sticks to her guns and doesn't let fame and fortune influence her writing. I think a lot of people out there would feel cheated if she suddenly sold out and started writing this series solely to entertain the fans. She did invent the series to please herself, and along the way she picked up one heck of a fan base. I don't think it fair that the fans should dictate how the books turn out. If that is the case, why didn't one of us put the stories out first? If Harry has to die, so be it. Don't get me wrong, I will mourn as though I had lost a personal friend, but it won't change my love for the series. I would rather that be the case then Harry living cuz JKR didn't want to upset the public. If the death of a beloved character is enough to change a person's view of the series, maybe that person wasn't really a fan to begin with. Christy From hp_fan16 at yahoo.com Sat Aug 31 19:28:06 2002 From: hp_fan16 at yahoo.com (gabrielle jones) Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2002 12:28:06 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Predictions In-Reply-To: <1030756673.1296.24544.m12@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <20020831192806.48379.qmail@web12907.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 43432 I read everyones predictions and i have one major one of my own. I think, first that Hermoine and Ron will date and 'be together' Then I think Malfoy, who will like Hermoine, will become very jealous of Ron. I think He'll do some thing to get back at Ron, but hurt Hermoine consequentially. Then Hermoine will die or be hurt so bad that, Ron grief stricken, will be constantly at her side. Harry in the meantime, will begin to develop a relationship (friendship) with Malfoy. Malfoy, who is also so grief stricken, that Crabbe and Goyle can't console him so Harry tries cherring him and they begin to become friends. Ron of course won't really notice Harry and Malfoy, until they become near best friends. Then I think Ron who is now jealous and angry at Malfoy, will do something stupid, but Malfoy now being frineds with Harry, will have changed, and won't be so petty. So the two just remain friends with Harry, without talking to eachother. Then the new trio, will defeat Voldemort, but Ron will be killed in action. Well that's my (possibly bizzare) prediction. Go ahead shoot it down, but it might happen =)! Normal- ~the ugly Veela~ --------------------------------- Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From doffy99 at yahoo.com Sat Aug 31 20:20:16 2002 From: doffy99 at yahoo.com (doffy99) Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2002 20:20:16 -0000 Subject: What Makes a Viable Population In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43433 > jferer said: > > The wizard world in Britain is still small, very small, even at > > 20,000. It almost doesn't work at that figure. > > The problem here is that, if Hogwarts is the only wizarding school > > in Britain, then the population of the wizarding world is nailed to > > the student census. If there were other schools, or if most > > wizards were trained up in apprenticeships, then the population > > problem would go away. The population could be anything. > > > > One problem I have with apprenticeships is that the wizard world > > seems to be a literate one, with a newspaper, magazines, and books. > > I also don't like to imagine a wizard world with that kind of class > > structure, where a small elite is educated and the rest not. I'm > sure > > JKR doesn't believe in that. Of course, that's not canonical, > that's > > gut, and doesn't prove anything. > >From what we know, and it isn't much, of a wizards life BEFORE Hogwarts, they are 1) taught in ordinary muggle schools, unlikely. 2) Taught at home by their parents or 3) Taught in non-muggle private schools within their community. (Considering the size of the Wizard population in Britain is being estimated at 20,000, I'd say Floo powder is a good guess as to transport. Since, like the Weasley's, a community may have only one, two or three wizard families.) If ANY of these are true, and one of them almost has to be, then the kids are taught to read and write and certain basic classes such as math and maybe history before ever coming to Hogwarts. I've noticed that Hogwarts does not teach English Compostion. Except as it applies to magic, Hogwarts teaches almost nothing of the basics: Reading, writing, mathmatics, history etc. So the wizard world WOULD be educated, but possibly not all trained in magic except in their certain area. Such as Stan Shunpike. The assistant driver(?) of the night bus. The man does not seem real bright nor magically inclined. My guess is he's just the magical side of a squib. He knows enough magic to get by and to do his job. What else does he need? He could have been trained to do this job, and the limited magic needed, as an apprentice. Perhaps a wand maker, like Ollivander, does not need huge amounts of magic to produce a wand. Maybe he just needs training. We don't know. Does Madam Malkin really need magic to make robes? The guy in the bookstore(Can't remember the name right now) has NEVER done a magic trick we've seen. The WIZARDS, the trained ones, the Hogwarts Alumni, would go to work for the MoM as Aurors and explorers, such as Charlie working with Dragons. The others, the not so proficeint, very well may go into apprenticeships. Being taught by a mentor or maybe even their parents. This, as you point out, would screw up the Wizard Population estimates, but it makes sense. Even in Muggle society, not everyone goes to a university. Not everyone can get into a high school for the Arts and, in essence, isn't that what Hogwarts is? A high school for kids with a gift? They're learning an art! =Jeff From doffy99 at yahoo.com Sat Aug 31 20:38:57 2002 From: doffy99 at yahoo.com (doffy99) Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2002 20:38:57 -0000 Subject: Whatever will become of the Marauder's Map? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 43434 I think most here already know the history of the Marauder's Map so I won't go through it here. My question for the board is... Will the Marauder's Map return? Who has it now and will Harry get it back? We know Filch took it from MWPP and kept it in his desk but never figured out what it was. All he knew was that it was something that MWPP wanted. This time though, at the end of GoF, it wasn't Filch who took it. Nobody took it. Barty Crouch jr. revealed the existence of the Marauder's Map to Dumbledore. Dumbledore asked about it "What map?" but nothing else was ever said about it. Including who has it. Logically, Dumbledore would have it and probably would figure the whole thing out but would he return it to Harry?? Logically, it is Harry's. His father and God-Father aided in it's creation. Lupin returned it to Harry at the end of PoA. That only leaves Pettigrew and I don't think ANYONE is going to worry to much about his opinion of what should happen to the map. Harry should inherit the map. If not while in Hogwarts, then definitly once he's out. I've had one opinion that the map was a minor plotline and that it would never come back. I don't agree with this. I think the Marauders Map will return and Harry will pass it on to a new student before the end of Book 7. Remember, Dumbledore, who now, presumably, has the map, is the same person who gave James' invisibility cloak to Harry. Dumbledore knew how much trouble James and friends caused with that cloak. Why would he give it to Harry? Now, why wouldn't he return the Marauder's Map? :) =Jeff From kaityf at jorsm.com Sat Aug 31 17:56:28 2002 From: kaityf at jorsm.com (Carol Bainbridge) Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2002 12:56:28 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Predictions Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20020831125410.01f10ec0@MAILHOST.JORSM.COM> No: HPFGUIDX 43436 At 8/30/02 07:50 PM, you wrote: This is my first post -- couldn't resist this discussion! Here's what I think about sphause's predictions: > > 1. Dumbledore will die (Fairly Obvious) I agree. It is pretty common in new mythology stories for the old, kindly wizard to die at the end. I do think his death, however, will contribute to Voldemort's downfall, maybe even making it possible for Voldemort to "die." > > 2. Harry, Ron and Hermione will not die (Duh!) I really hate to think of any of them dying, but my vote would be for Ron. I think Ron is going to get progressively resentful of the attention Harry gets -- as he begins to be in Book 4. Voldemort may use that resentment to trick Ron into doing something that is meant to kill Harry. Of course, Ron won't know it's Voldemort, but it will be too late, at least for Ron. At the last Ron will figure it out and sacrifice himself to help ruin Voldemort's plan. I see it as being a rather poignant moment because at last Ron will get the kind of attention Harry's has always gotten, but he will realize that it's not so great after all. Still he will rise to the occasion. He will be hero like Harry had been. > > 3. Snape will be a hero I don't see Snape as a hero at all. I do think he'll do something completely out of character -- at least the character we see. At the end of Book 4, we know Dumbledore sends him off on some dangerous task, apparently something he has either done before or has been a contingency plan for years. (Dumbledore says to him, "You know what to do." I'm not sure those are the exact words, but it's close.) I think Snape will be instrumental in Voldemort's destruction, perhaps with Ron, who then learns the real background of Snape. If that happens, we may see a glimpse of the Snape underneath the mean, unfair Snape. We may even learn some of Snape's history that way. If we do, Snape can go on being his mean self, but we'll all know the truth! In any case, I think Ron would be the big hero. > > 4. Snape will give his life to save Harry's I disagree with this one. I see Ron as being the one to give his life to save Harry. If it's not Ron, then I still don't see Snape doing it. That would be the expected thing and JKR doesn't ever do the expected. I do think, however, that Snape will do something that will really surprise us. Maybe the only reason he's at Hogwart's at all is to protect the school should Voldemort ever return. It seems clear that not everyone believed Voldemort was gone for good. I'll bet Dumbledore was one such person. The fact that he tells Snape "You know what you have to do" makes me think that he and Dumbledore have talked about this possibility and had a plan in mind. Perhaps Snape remains pretty nasty in order to make it more possible to do whatever he has to do -- which seems to involve returning to Voldemort. Whatever happens with Snape, we won't be expecting it. > > 5. If Snape does not die, he will become the headmaster. I don't agree with this one either. I'm much more inclined to see Snape advance to head of the Ministry of Magic. He might actually do a good job there, since he doesn't really seem to like teaching. > > 6. If Snape does dies, McGonagall will become the headmaster. I don't see McGonagall as taking over Dumbledore's job either. She is deputy headmistress, but that doesn't guarantee a move up. It's not like being Vice-President. If a principal leaves, the assistant principal doesn't necessarily take over; a new principal is hired. I'm not sure what to expect from McGonagall, I just really don't see her as being in charge of Hogwarts. I can see her remaining as deputy headmistress, but I'm sure there'll be something else. > > 7. Voldemort will die at Harry's hand never to return. I disagree with this too. I think it will seem like it to almost everyone, but there will be just the tiniest hint that Voldemort is still out there. After all, there will always be evil in the world. Probably Harry and Sirius will be the only ones who really understand this. And maybe Hagrid. He hadn't believed Voldemort was gone the first time. > > 8. Ron and Hermione will be an item. I agree with this -- but it will be temporary. Book 4 certainly gives us some hints that there is something going on with Ron and Hermione. However, I would say that Hermione gets more and more upset with Ron's attitude, which gets progressively worse because of his jealousy of Harry. Here is what I think about meggie_sunshine's predictions: >1) Remus Lupin will die either at Voldemort's hand or a Death Eaters'. I don't think Lupin will die. I think he will join the fight against Voldemort and will be able to return to Hogwarts. Perhaps a more permanent treatment/cure for his condition will be discovered. I don't know about this one, though. It seems rather cheap for JKR. >2) Sirius Black will have his name cleared and will join the fight against >Voldemort. I think it is in the fight against Voldemort that Sirius' name gets cleared. At the end, when all is done, the full truth will come out. >3) We will find out why Arthur Weasley knows so many MOM important people. >And we'll learn more about his/Molly's past. I think there is something important about Arthur too. But I'm not sure it has anything to do with his knowing so many MOM people. He does work there after all. Isn't he head of his department? I think so. So it is likely that he knows others in high positions. Even young "Weatherby" knows some higher ups and he just started working there. >4) There will eventually be an American in the books. I don't know >who/why, but I think it will happen. Maybe. It could make for some fun. Maybe the Hogwarts students will go to America as their trip outside Hogwarts. >5) Cornelius Fudge will be ousted as Minister of Magic either in Book 6 or >the last one. I agree with this. He has not been terribly effectual. >6) Either Bill or Charlie Weasley will return in more depth. That makes sense. I would guess that they play a role in the fight against Voldemort. Perhaps Charlie will do something with the dragons? >7) JKR has said that there will be a book (was it 5? I can't >remember offhand) where the students will go away from Hogwarts. I >think there will be a quest of some sort Perhaps as I said, they might visit America. I'm not sure why, though. However, it wouldn't be a place we would expect them to go. On the other hand, I really can't see any magical reason for visiting America. What would there be in America for Hogwarts students? Something about vampires in New Orleans? Now I have a couple of my own predictions to add to the growing list: 1. Sirius will become headmaster of Hogwarts After the fight against Voldemort, it is clear that Sirius had been framed and his name will be cleared. His extreme loyalty will be obvious. He is wise and humorous, making him a perfect replacement for Dumbledore. In addition, he doesn't have any other occupation, having been in Azkaban for so many years, so it makes sense that way too. 2. Snape will become the head of the Ministry of Magic. If Fudge gets ousted a new head will be needed. I think Snape's role in the fight against Voldemort will make it clear that he is the perfect man for the job. 3. Draco Malfoy will become the new potions master when Snape leaves to become Head of MOM. Malfoy has always been Snape's favorite student, and it is possible that Snape recommends him. I don't think that Malfoy will undergo and Dickensian end-of-story transformation, so he can go right on being a nasty git, just like Snape. However, I do think that he opted not to go to the "dark side" with his father, who clearly from Book 4 goes back to Voldemort, along with Crabbe and Goyle's fathers. Malfoy is a prejudiced, mean little cuss, but perhaps he'll stop just short of becoming a death eater. Perhaps Voldemort will kill Lucius Malfoy for some minor infraction which will make Draco see dark wizardry differently. He'll still be prejudiced and mean, like Snape was, but he'll help fight against Voldemort. Carol Bainbridge (kaityf at jorsm.com) http://www.lcag.org From kaityf at jorsm.com Sat Aug 31 17:59:17 2002 From: kaityf at jorsm.com (Carol Bainbridge) Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2002 12:59:17 -0500 Subject: Predictions Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20020831125838.01f10b30@MAILHOST.JORSM.COM> No: HPFGUIDX 43437 This is in response to EH's note on predictions. > > 2. Harry, Ron and Hermione will not die (Duh!) > > Don't be too sure. Ron's fate is by no means sure, and JKR plays > > coy with Harry's. I'd say he's going to live. I think Hermione is safe I agree with this assessment. So many people assumed that Harry would of course live that JKR through out comment about his possible death to make people think his death is a possibility. I can't imagine that she will kill off Harry. I agree with the poster who said that authors become attached to their heroes and so rarely kill them off. It's clear that JKR is attached to Harry; she even married someone who looks like a grown up Harry! >My prediction regarding Ron's fate: >In Book 5 or 6, Ron and Hermoine become an item. Harry >and Ginny will also become an item(I am *such* a fan >of the Harry/Ginny scenario. Always go with the >underdog, I say). I think this is "iffy" because it seems like such the obvious thing to have happen. For that reason alone, I don't see it happening. I think Ginny continues to have a crush on Harry for much of the story, perhaps to the end when she realizes that other young men have qualities she was never able to recognize, Neville for example. Everyone laughs at bumbling Neville, but I suspect that he's going to come to his own at the end of the final book. >Just a theory. I could be *way* off... but >interesting, no? Either way I think Ron's fate is >ultimately a dark one - I really think he will either >be tempted to the Dark Side(due to his increasing >bitterness towards Harry's fame and money), or he will >die. I agree with this ultimate outcome and the basic reason for it. (I *just* sent a note including this idea!) However, I don't think Ron intentionally goes to the dark side. I think he is tricked into it -- but then that's how a lot of people end up on the "dark side," isn't it? We don't intend to do something bad, but jealousy or some other "deadly sin" leads us to behave in ways that eventually makes us "evil." I think this is the kind of thing that happens to Ron, but at the very end, he realizes what he's done and redeems himself. >Also I think Hermoine will live and Harry as well - if >JKR was really going to kill him off, I don't think >she would have ever even *hinted* at it, seeing as >she'd probably assume no one would expect his death. >She'd want it to come out of left field. Total agreement. An additional prediction I have: Neville will turn out to be a much better wizard that anyone suspected. He is in Gryffindor, so we know he is very brave, but he is always so clumsy and inept. We know his grandmother, and other family members, thought he'd never even get into Hogwarts because he had little or no magic in him. However, it could be that at the end, Neville, who has showed his bravery in the past, plays a crucial role in the fight against Voldemort and as he does so, discovers the truth about the death of his parents. It may be that what he remembers about his parents' deaths prevented him from tapping his inner magic. When he learns the truth, the block is removed and he finds that he is much more capable than he thought. It may be that this new magical ability helps a great deal to destroy Voldemort, who certainly would not expect it from Neville, if he knew him at all. After this, everyone will see Neville in a whole new way, including Ginny Weasely. Carol Bainbridge (kaityf at jorsm.com) http://www.lcag.org